Part 2: Millennium Development Goals



Part 2: Millennium Development Goals

At the Millennium Summit in September 2000 the largest gathering of world leaders in history adopted the UN Millennium Declaration, committing their nations to a new global partnership to reduce extreme poverty and setting out a series of time-bound targets, with a deadline of 2015, that have become known as the Millennium Development Goals. To achieve these goals the United Nations commissioned the Millennium Project and developed a concrete action plan to embrace 15 major global challenges.

Choose one issue and get ready to argue why it tops the list of your priorities in making our world a better place.

Human Rights Agenda for the 21st Century

LEAD-IN

Forums like Twitter and Facebook just like Youtube video sharing website are changing the way we fight for human rights giving activists a reach never possible before.

Better communication has always changed how the world worked. Today with just a click of a few buttons information is sent instantaneously around the globe.

Say, how the Internet contributes to human rights campaigns around the world.

What other developments contribute to shifting the way people fight for human rights in the 21st century?

READING 1: READ AND DISCUSS

Internet Access Is Not a Human Right

January 4, 2012

By Vinton Cerf

FROM the streets of Tunis to Tahrir Square and beyond, protests around the world were built on the Internet and the many devices that interact with it. Though the demonstrations thrived because thousands of people turned out to participate, they could never have happened as they did without the ability that the Internet offers to communicate, organize and publicize everywhere, instantaneously.

It is no surprise, then, that the protests have raised questions about whether Internet access is or should be a civil or human right. The issue is particularly acute in countries whose governments clamped down on Internet access in an attempt to quell the protesters. In June, citing the uprisings in the Middle East and North Africa, a report by the United Nations’ special rapporteur went so far as to declare that the Internet had “become an indispensable tool for realizing a range of human rights.” Over the past few years, courts and parliaments in countries like France and Estonia have pronounced Internet access a human right.

But that argument, however well meaning, misses a larger point: technology is an enabler of rights, not a right itself. There is a high bar for something to be considered a human right. Loosely put, it must be among the things we as humans need in order to lead healthy, meaningful lives, like freedom from torture or freedom of conscience. It is a mistake to place any particular technology in this exalted category, since over time we will end up valuing the wrong things. For example, at one time if you didn’t have a horse it was hard to make a living. But the important right in that case was the right to make a living, not the right to a horse. Today, if I were granted a right to have a horse, I’m not sure where I would put it.

The best way to characterize human rights is to identify the outcomes that we are trying to ensure. These include critical freedoms like freedom of speech and freedom of access to information — and those are not necessarily bound to any particular technology at any particular time. Indeed, even the United Nations report, which was widely hailed as declaring Internet access a human right, acknowledged that the Internet was valuable as a means to an end, not as an end in itself.

What about the claim that Internet access is or should be a civil right? The same reasoning above can be applied here — Internet access is always just a tool for obtaining something else more important — though the argument that it is a civil right is, I concede, a stronger one than that it is a human right. Civil rights, after all, are different from human rights because they are conferred upon us by law, not intrinsic to us as human beings.

While the United States has never decreed that everyone has a “right” to a telephone, we have come close to this with the notion of “universal service” — the idea that telephone service (and electricity, and now broadband Internet) must be available even in the most remote regions of the country. When we accept this idea, we are edging into the idea of Internet access as a civil right, because ensuring access is a policy made by the government.

Yet all these philosophical arguments overlook a more fundamental issue: the responsibility of technology creators themselves to support human and civil rights. The Internet has introduced an enormously accessible and egalitarian platform for creating, sharing and obtaining information on a global scale. As a result, we have new ways to allow people to exercise their inalienable human and civil rights.

In this context, engineers have not only a tremendous obligation to empower users, but also an obligation to ensure the safety of users online. That means, for example, protecting users from specific harms like viruses and worms that silently invade their computers. Technologists should work toward this end.

It is engineers that create and maintain these new capabilities. As we seek to advance the state of the art in technology and its use in society, we must also be conscious of our civil responsibilities.

Improving the Internet is just one means, albeit an important one, by which to improve the human condition. It must be done with an appreciation for the civil and human rights that deserve protection — without pretending that access itself is such a right.

Vinton G. Cerf is a vice president and chief Internet evangelist for Google.

Vocabulary notes:

1. to clamp down on (sb.,sth.) - подавлять; прекращать; стать требовательнее к кому-л.- The government has promised to clamp down on criminal activity. — Правительство пообещало подавить преступную деятельность. We must clamp down now, before it's too late to stop the trouble. — Нам нужно немедленно пресечь это, прежде чем станет слишком поздно.(сравните: crack down on)

2. to quell (the protesters, protests, dissent, opposition…) - to suppress

3. indispensable (tool, link) – essential, necessary (важный, необходимый, обязательный)

Written sources are considered indispensable for today’s history teaching.

These drugs are indispensable in the fight against disease

The skills turned out to be indispensable to her career.

4. to have the right to sth.

5. to confer sth. upon sb.- to grant (a title, an honour)

6. intrinsic (to) sb. – basic, inborn, inherent (in), присущий, свойственный

7. to overlook – to oversee, miss, forget, disregard…

8. inalienable (right) – integral, inherent, absolute неотъемлемый

9. to empower (sb) – наделять полномочиями, предоставлять право

Look at the sentences that follow and fill the gaps with the words given above:

a. Mubarak ordered troops and tanks into cities to __________ demonstrations.

b. Argentina is not intimidating anyone, only reclaiming an _________ right to the sovereignty of the Malvinas.

c. In saying that single mothers should go back to work, the government is trying to convince us that only paid employment ________ dignity.

d. There are several motivations that drive a player to maximize his own _________ potential.

e. We need our legal system to protect and _________ women to make decisions about their lives.

f. The website has disabled its file sharing services amid heated debate over Washington's attempts to ________ on online piracy.

g. Pakistan becomes the new ________ partner that anchors US national security.

h. __________ by the Academy for acknowledged masterworks, Scorsese won a long overdue Oscar for best director in 2007.

i. No amount of pressure will be able to break our nation's determination defend its legal and ________ rights.

j. The time is right to publish a green paper on ________regions to strengthen the accountability of regional chambers.

k. A late October poll reveals that many Americans are still facing tough economic times, and a majority think the government needs ________ on Wall Street.

l. Marriage _______"little if any benefit" in terms of a child's development, according to new research,

m. Police used live bullets and tear gas to ________ rioting between followers of Sierra Leone's ruling party and opposition.

n. Readers marveled at the cover story on architectural innovations, pointing out mankind's ________ desire to leave a creative mark.

• What is the difference between civil and human rights?

• Do you share the opinion that the Internet access should be a civil or human right? Give your reasons.

READING 2: READ AND DISCUSS

RIGHT OR WRONG?

Legally, rights have never been so extensively defined for so many: the rights of ethnic minorities, the rights of women, the rights of children, the rights of single parents, and the LGBT1 rights. The right to claim compensation when your rights are violated. The rights of workers, of consumers and of the “unwaged.” The rights of companies and organizations. The rights of animals and the rights of plants. The rights of smokers and non-smokers. It’s a list seemingly without end.

The prosperous nations of the Western world have never been more focused on rights. But could this focus on rights have some adverse effects? Is the obsession with rights creating a better society? Surely we should all be happier by now. But society is increasingly self-centered and dangerous, and happiness for many is more elusive than ever.

RIGHTS vs. RESPONSIBILITIES

The UK government says it wants to take its proposed bill of rights and responsibilities to the country for debate. The green paper2 proposes bringing together, into a single bill, a UK citizen’s rights and the responsibilities that should go with them. The rights include economic and social rights, such as the right to free healthcare, the rights of crime victims and the right to equality. The responsibilities include the duty to vote, serve on juries, live within the country’s environmental limits and promote the wellbeing of children. The bill is not intended to replace the Human Rights Act, but might ‘subsume it or preserve it as a separate act’.

Reading Notes:

LGBT - the term collectively refers to "lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender" people. In use since the 1990s, "LGBT" replaced the phrase "gay community" which many within the community in question felt did not accurately represent all those to whom it referred.

Green paper A UK government publication, intended to stimulate public discussion on an issue, without necessarily committing the government to legislation, or as to the lines this might take. This is contrasted with a white paper, which is a UK government publication generally intended as a prelude to legislation, and giving some indication of its likely form.

White Paper - A UK government publication, generally intended as a prelude to legislation. The eventual legislation may differ from the white paper's proposals in some respects. A white paper is contrasted with a ‘green paper’, a UK government publication intended to stimulate public discussion of an issue, without committing the government to legislating at all, or to the lines any legislation might take.

1. Are there rights and responsibilities so central to our way of life they should be entrenched in our constitution and not left to the whim of political parties?

2. Can human rights be legally contingent on discharge of responsibilities? (Can someone who has broken the law be denied his or her rights, for example)

3. What can governments do to strike the right balance between rights and responsibilities, between liberty and security?

Vocabulary Notes:

to accept / admit / assume / claim / take / take on (the) / claim responsibility — взять на себя ответственность

The group has claimed responsibility for a string of murders

British Rail has admitted responsibility for the accident

to bear / exercise (the) responsibility — нести бремя, груз, тяжесть ответственности

discharge / fulfill a responsibility / perform a duty / carry out, fulfill, meet commitments / obligations – выполнять обязательства

to disclaim responsibility — снимать (с себя) ответственность, слагать (с себя) полномочия

to dodge (taxes)/ evade (taxes, law – обходить закон) / shirk school responsibility — избегать, уклоняться от ответственности

to share (the) responsibility — разделять ответственность

release / free / relieve / exempt from / responsibility – освобождать от ответственности

|DIY: |Search the Internet for information on the correlation between rights and responsibilities. You may choose to speak about: |

| |the rights and responsibilities conventionally associated with the media |

| |voting – a right or a responsibility |

| |parental responsibility and children’s rights |

| |the right for a trial by jury versus jury duty |

| |right to privacy and the war on terror |

| |military service: alternative service in lieu of conscription |

| |Prepare a 5-minute statement on any of the above-mentioned topics or suggest one of your own. |

WRITING 1: A PARAGRAPH

In class write a paragraph starting with the words:

Everyone seems to know their 'Rights', but few seem to understand the responsibilities that underpin those rights. …

HUMAN RIGHTS QUIZ

1. When was the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted?

• 5 April 1976

• 6 June 1923

• 10 December 1948

2. Where was the Universal Declaration adopted?

• Royal Palace, in Copenhagen, Denmark

• Palais de Chaillot, in Paris, France

• United Nations Headquarters in New York

3. Who of the following was a key contributor to the drafting of the Universal Declaration?

• Eleanor Roosevelt (United States of America)

• Winston Churchill (United kingdom)

• Charles de Gaulle (France)

4. How many countries are members of the Human Rights Council?

• 53

• 191

• 47

5. When was the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights established?

• 1954

• 1973

• 1993

6. Which of these UN bodies does not hear individual complaints of human rights violations?

• The International Labour Organization

• The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination

• The Human Rights Committee

7. What percentage of children between the ages of 5 and 14 are currently working?

• 250 million

• 2 million

• 560 million

8. What percentage of the world’s poor are women?

• 22%

• 70%

• 54%

9. Which country was the first to grant full voting rights to women (in 1893)?

• Finland

• New Zealand

• Iceland

10. Which country was behind most Western nations to grant voting rights to women (in 1971)?

• Sweden

• Switzerland

• Great Britain

11. Who was the first head of state to be arrested by another country for human rights crimes?

• Slobodan Milosevic

• Pol Pot

• Augusto Pinochet

12. Which is the most widespread violation of human rights today?

• Torture of political prisoners

• Insufficient state protection of the rights of women and girls

• Forced child labour

READING 3: Read the text, word its message. Explain and expand on the underlined sentences.

VOX POPULI OR HOI POLLOI?

Apr 20th 2011

The Economist

Does more voting necessarily mean more democracy? People power has its perils

IN 2004, Saif Qaddafi (then seen as the Libyan ruler’s reformist scion) outlined to a foreign visitor his plans to convert his father’s rambling theory of direct democracy into a real political system. Something on Swiss lines would be ideal.

The particular ambition may seem risible now. Yet the general sentiment is common. The Alpine federation’s political system, in which citizens may vote 30-plus times a year in a mixture of local and national polls, is proving seductive for politicians and voters of all stripes.

Some Swiss votes are ordered by politicians, yet many, known as “initiatives”, are binding votes on national legislation triggered by citizens’ petitions. In recent years these have widened state health-insurance to cover alternative medicine; enforced deportation of foreigners guilty of serious crimes and benefit fraud; and banned the building of mosques with minarets.

Helvetian zeal for direct votes skews global statistics. Nearly a quarter of all recorded national referendums have taken place there. Countries hold almost twice as many referendums as they did 50 years ago.

Politicians may be getting keener on public support for new laws. But few want to allow voters to write them: that would be not so much democracy, they say, as ochlocracy—mob rule. Compact and cohesive electorates, such as in a Swiss canton, are unusually good places for such votes to work: voters are more likely to ponder the issues fully beforehand, and to deal maturely with the result afterwards.

So only a few countries give voters Swiss-style rights to take their own proposals to the ballot box. Of all the citizen-initiated nationwide votes recorded since the 1980s, 90% have taken place in Switzerland and six other states: Italy, Liechtenstein, Uruguay, Lithuania, Latvia and Hungary. Though the United States is one of the few democracies never to have held a national referendum, Californians were asked to vote on 14 local issues last year. Since 1996 Japan has had several hundred local polls.

Pan-European votes are in the offing too. From April 1st 2012 the European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI) will allow petitioners in the European Union to propose legislation to the European Commission. Among the several criteria is finding 1m signatories (0.2% of the EU population) from a quarter of member countries. Petitions already under way include a proposal to halt the introduction of genetically modified crops, and one that would bar Turkey from the EU forever. Another wants shops to close on Sundays. It is noteworthy that successful petition does not trigger a public vote or even a parliamentary debate. It only obliges the Eurocrats to respond.

Ballot blocks

The sunshine state’s experience certainly casts a cloud over the enthusiasm for direct democracy. Citizen initiatives there are blamed for fiscal ruin and incoherent, contradictory mandates. Fans of direct democracy argue that California’s woes stem from the practice, not the concept. Some say that flaws in representative forms of democracy make reform essential. Voters increasingly want to engage in politics “issue by issue”. Greenpeace, founded in 1971, has nearly 3m paying members. Over the same period, trust in political parties has shrivelled. In America “independents” now outnumber Republicans or Democrats.

Yet direct democracy does not always give power to the people. Referendums in democratic countries may now far outnumber the sham plebiscites beloved of autocratic rulers. Yet heavy-handed rulers continue to hijack the fashion for direct democracy to quell dissent or circumvent parliamentary limitations on their power. In November Andry Rajoelina, a 36-year-old former disc-jockey who took power in Madagascar after a military coup, called a plebiscite to approve a new constitution—and keep him in control. In 2009 Hugo Chávez, who says his goal is to rule Venezuela until at least 2030, used a popular vote to abolish the term limit on his presidency. Authoritarian rulers rarely lose such votes.

The genie of direct democracy is hard to rebottle when released, even if the results prove dysfunctional or perverse. Once empowered to pass legislation, electorates rarely initiate votes that might limit their own power. In that respect, politicians and the people have much in common.

|DIY: |Given below are the overviews of some of the human rights’ issues. |

| |Choose one of them and develop it into a 3-minute statement. You are free to suggest any other topic that you find most interesting.|

| |The sites to help you make your choice are: |

| | |

| |Remember to single out the most useful topical vocabulary units. |

1. Government responses to the threat of terrorist attacks have led to a weakening of the framework of international human rights. States are resorting to practices which have long been prohibited by international law, and have sought to justify them in the name of national security…

2. Indigenous Peoples are uprooted from their lands and territories as a consequence of discriminatory government policies, the impact of armed conflicts, and the actions of private economic interests. Social marginalization and legal discrimination place Indigenous Peoples at risk of a wide range of human rights…

3. Every day across the world people make the difficult decision to leave their homes. War, persecution, environmental disaster and poverty are just some of the reasons why a person might feel that they have to leave their family, community or country. Refugees, internally displaced persons, asylum seekers, migrants often have more than one reason for leaving their home…

4. Across the world children are denied their human rights, including for example, their right to education. They are recruited into armed forces. They are subjected to the death penalty, are disappeared, are punished by cruel and inhumane methods and suffer many other forms of violence…

5. Everyone has a sexual orientation and a gender identity. When someone’s gender identity does not conform to the majority, they are often seen as a legitimate target for discrimination or abuse…

6. There are numerous laws and practices restricting women’s fundamental freedoms – including freedom of movement and of expression. From infancy, girls face worse treatment than boys in such forms as denial of equal access to education and health services…

PROFICIENCY FILE: Use of English

Gapped Sentences

1. Bill Clinton accuses Obama camp of stirring race issue in ………. of the Democratic primary on Saturday, in which at least half the voters are expected to be black.

JAL, once the pride of Asia and a symbol of Japan’s global economic ………., today agreed to file for bankruptcy.

Gerry Adams’ younger brother Liam traded on the Sinn Fein president’s name to ………. his career.

2. It remains unclear what the Republicans will consider sufficient success to ………. bringing the troops home.

The board concurred with the conclusion that there was insufficient evidence of his misconduct to ………. any further investigation.

Finkelstein continued to push the boundaries until his political activism prompted a judge to issue a ………. for his arrest in connection with an old drugs charge.

3. America, which once seemed like a symbol of freedom, now ……… the policies of force.

Animal-rights ………. in France are pushing for legislation that would outlaw the sale of horsemeat, which they see as barbaric.

Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, who is concerned that inflation will become another serious problem ………. a different approach.

4. When people are ………. the right to discuss their life on the parliament floor or in the media, they're forced into the street.

Mr Ozawa has ………. the charges, insisted that the prosecutors are politically motivated.

The Indian middle classes ………. the pleasures of consumerism ever since independence in 1947, are making up for lost time.

5. The election's problems weren't confined to the validity of the vote — although evidence abounded of ………. rigging.

Other conservatives are disgusted by what they see Avatar’s ………. anti-Americanism, claiming the Canadian-born Cameron is offering a critique of the US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The fact that Governor Sanford he went AWOL in South America for almost a week reflected his ………. disregard for the workings of government.

6. No ………. results have been gained during the Iraq adventure by either the Americans or the Iraqi people except getting rid of the tyrant Saddam Hussein.

There should be some ………. evidence that the economy is starting to recover, not just words.

Mr. Obama will also have to demonstrate some ………. action to dispel the notion that his plans to shut down the detention center at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, makes Americans less safe.

Multiple choice lexical cloze

Global Unemployment Rate to Climb in 2008

More people will be out of work in 2008 as a result of global economic cooling, and any major slowdown could cause (1) ………. and further hike unemployment, the International Labour Organisation (ILO) said.

In a report issued in the wake of heavy losses in world stock markets, and (2)……….growing fears of worldwide recession, the United Nations agency said the world unemployment rate would climb to 6.1 percent this year from 6.0 percent in 2007.

In addition to (3) ………. economic trouble, the ILO said rapid technological advances would present a major challenge for workers in the year ahead, particularly in rich markets such as the United States, Europe and Japan where jobs are increasingly being (4) ……….poorer countries with cheaper labour (5) ……….

|1. |A. |

READING 4: SKIMMING

FEMALE POWER

Dec 30th 2009

The Economist

Across the rich world more women are working than ever before. Coping with this change will be one of the great challenges of the coming decades

THE economic empowerment of women across the rich world is one of the most remarkable revolutions of the past 50 years. It is remarkable because of the extent of the change: millions of people who were once dependent on men have taken control of their own economic fates. It is remarkable also because it has produced so little friction: a change that affects the most intimate aspects of people’s identities has been widely welcomed by men as well as women. Dramatic social change seldom takes such a benign form.

Yet even benign change can come with a sting in its tail. Social arrangements have not caught up with economic changes. Many children have paid a price for the rise of the two-income household. Many women—and indeed many men—feel that they are caught in an ever-tightening tangle of commitments. If the empowerment of women was one of the great changes of the past 50 years, dealing with its social consequences will be one of the great challenges of the next 50.

At the end of her campaign to become America’s first female president in 2008, Hillary Clinton remarked that her 18m votes in the Democratic Party’s primaries represented 18m cracks in the glass ceiling. In the market for jobs rather than votes the ceiling is being cracked every day. Women now make up almost half of American workers (49.9% in October). They run some of the world’s best companies and earn almost 60% of university degrees in America and Europe.

Progress has not been uniform, of course. In Italy and Japan employment rates for men are more than 20 percentage points higher than those for women. Women earn substantially less than men on average and are severely under-represented at the top of organisations.

The change is dramatic nevertheless. A generation ago working women performed menial jobs and were routinely subjected to casual sexism. Today women make up the majority of professional workers in many countries (51% in the United States, for example) and casual sexism is for losers. Even holdouts such as the Mediterranean countries are changing rapidly. In Spain the proportion of young women in the labour force has now reached American levels. The glass is much nearer to being half full than half empty.

What explains this revolution? Politics have clearly played a part. Governments have passed equal-rights acts. Female politicians such as Margaret Thatcher, Madeleine Albright, Condoleezza Rice and Hillary Clinton have taught younger women that anything is possible. But politics is only part of the answer.

The rich world has seen a growing demand for women’s labour. When brute strength mattered more than brains, men had an inherent advantage. Now that brainpower has triumphed the two sexes are more evenly matched. The feminisation of the workforce has been driven by the relentless rise of the service sector (where women can compete as well as men) and the equally relentless decline of manufacturing (where they could not).

The expansion of higher education has also boosted job prospects for women, improving their value on the job market and shifting their role models from stay-at-home mothers to successful professional women. The best-educated women have always been more likely than other women to work, even after having children.

The trend towards more women working is almost certain to continue. Women will also be the beneficiaries of the growing “war for talent”. The combination of an ageing workforce and a more skill-dependent economy means that countries will have to make better use of their female populations.

I. Explain and expand on the following:

• Dramatic social change seldom takes such a benign form.

• Yet even benign change can come with a sting in its tail.

• Social arrangements have not caught up with economic changes.

• Many children have paid a price for the rise of the two-income household

• Her 18m votes in the Democratic Party’s primaries represented 18m cracks in the glass ceiling

• The glass is much nearer to being half full than half empty

• Politics have clearly played a part

• The feminisation of the workforce has been driven by the relentless rise of the service sector

II. Look back at the extract and find words or phrases which mean the same as a-h.

a. cause little disagreement or controversy

b. to break an unacknowledged barrier to advancement in a profession

c. to be in a minority

d. striking and impressive (change ….)

e. s.o. who refuses to act and stops the situation from progressing or being resolved

f. mental ability; intelligence

g. a person who derives advantage from something

III. Replace these words and phrases in the text with suitable synonyms or phrases.

a. benign

b. tangle of commitments

c. a generation ago

d. menial (job)

e. brute strength

f. relentless (rise, decline)

g. ageing workforce

READING 5: SKIMMING

LET THEM VOTE

Oct 29th 2009

The Economist

Even society’s worst offenders should not lose the vote when they lose their liberty

MOST rich democracies spend a lot of time and money trying to convince more people to exercise their right to vote. So it might seem strange that some of the same countries take some trouble preventing thousands of citizens from going to the polls. In 48 American states and seven European countries, including Britain, prisoners are forbidden from voting in elections. Many more countries impose partial voting bans (applying only to prisoners serving long sentences, for instance). And in ten American states some criminals are stripped of the vote for life, even after their release.

Liberty is by no means the only right to be squeezed in jail, where second-order freedoms such as the right to privacy, to family life and so on inevitably take a battering. To some, the right to vote belongs in this category of minor, unavoidable privations. But it is neither. Those who believe in democracy ought to place the freedom to vote near the top of any list, and consider its removal a serious additional sanction. And losing the ability to vote is no longer a practical consequence of imprisonment, as it may once have been. Voting by proxy or post is easy nowadays; indeed, prisoners awaiting trial in jail do so already.

The principles retrospectively volunteered are wrong anyway. Some say that withdrawing the right to vote teaches jailbirds that if they don’t play by society’s rules they cannot expect a hand in making them. But it has yet to be shown that withholding the vote is an effective deterrent against offending. If anything, it is likely to militate against prisoners’ rehabilitation. One of the aims of imprisonment is to give miscreants a shove in the right direction, through job-training, Jesus or whatever does the trick. Allowing prisoners to vote will not magically reconnect them with society, but it will probably do more good than excluding them.

Serving prisoners are not numerous enough to swing many elections. But once a government uses disenfranchisement as a sanction, it is tempted to take things further. Consider those American states where the suspension of prisoners’ votes has morphed into a lifelong ban: in Republican-controlled Florida, for instance, nearly a third of black men cannot vote—enough to have swung the 2000 presidential election. Even those who don’t care much about prisoners’ rights should be wary of elected officials exercising too much say over who makes up the electorate.

• Do you think prisoners should be forbidden from voting in elections? Give your reasons.

• Look through the text again and find English equivalents to the Russian “лишить права голоса”. Search the dictionaries for more equivalents. Memorize them.

|FOLLOW-UP| |

| |You have most probably heard of a vote of confidence, casting vote, early vote. There are many more collocations in English with |

| |the word vote. Search the Internet for other usages of the word, cite examples, explain the meaning. |

DEBATE CLUB: PRACTISE IN GIVING COUNTER-ARGUMENTS

Given below are four arguments in support of the idea that people serving prison sentences should be permitted to vote in elections. Study these arguments, elaborate on them. Choose one that seems to you most convincing and present your counter-argument in writing.

• Prisoners remain human beings. We should respect their human rights and should infringe upon their liberty as little as possible, except for the protection of the public. Denying prisoners the right to vote does not protect the public and is therefore an unwarranted infringement upon the human rights of prisoners.

• Giving prisoners the vote would aid their rehabilitation, which is essential if they are to avoid re-offending after being released. Voting encourages prisoners to take an interest in current affairs, which will aid their reintegration into society.

• Few, if any, people are deterred from crime by the prospect of being unable to vote. The effectiveness of a sentence can be measured by how well it protects the public, how well it rehabilitates the offender, how well it reverses the effects of the crime committed and how well it deters future offending. Banning prisoners from voting is either counterproductive (i.e. in terms of rehabilitation) or has no positive effect.

• Linking a ban on voting to imprisonment is arbitrary. Many people who commit serious crimes are not sent to prison, because of their age, the effects upon their dependents or the likelihood that they will not re-offend. Others committing equivalent or lesser crimes, without these special circumstances, may be imprisoned. To deprive people of the vote as a punishment should not automatically be associated with imprisonment, but should be decided separately, as in France and Germany.

READING 6: READ THE SURVEY REPORT, GET READY TO ANALYSE IT AND ANSWER THE QUESTIONS

September 07, 2011,

The Associated Press

Poll shows most Americans are willing to give up some privacy and freedom to fight terrorism

Surveillance cameras in public places? Sure. Body scans at airports? Maybe. Snooping in personal e-mail? Not so fast.

The same Americans who are increasingly splashing their personal lives across Facebook and Twitter trace a meandering path when asked where the government should draw the line between protecting civil liberties and pursuing terrorism.

Ten years after the 9/11 attacks led to amped-up government surveillance efforts, two-thirds of Americans say it's fitting to sacrifice some privacy and freedoms in the fight against terrorism, according to a poll by the Associated Press Center for Public Affairs Research.

A slim majority — 54 percent — say if they had to choose between preserving their rights and freedoms and protecting people from terrorists, they'd come down on the side of civil liberties.

The public is particularly protective of the privacy of U.S. citizens, voicing sharp opposition to government surveillance of Americans' e-mails and phone calls.

For some Americans, their reluctance to give up any freedoms is a reflection of their belief that the terrorists eventually will succeed no matter what.

Others worry that giving up one freedom will lead to the loss of others.

The poll asked people to grapple with some of same quandaries that the government and the courts have been wrestling with over the past decade, and even before the 2001 terrorist attacks. And it turns out that policymakers, too, have drawn a zigzag line as they make tradeoffs between aggressively pursuing potential terrorists and preserving privacy and civil liberties.

Two-thirds of those surveyed believe the resulting policies are a mish-mash created in reaction to events as they occur rather than clearly planned.

Consider the rules on government interception of email: Sometimes that's legal and sometimes it's not. It depends on how old the email is, whether it's already been opened by the recipient, whether the sender and recipient are within the U.S., and which federal appellate court considers the question. Sometimes investigators need a warrant and sometimes no court approval is necessary.

The AP poll found that about half of those surveyed felt that they have indeed lost some of their own personal freedoms to fight terrorism. Was it worth it? Close to half of those who thought they'd lost freedoms doubted it was necessary.

Overall, six in 10 say the government is doing enough to protect Americans' rights and freedoms as it fights terrorism. But people may not even be aware of what they've given up. The extent of government eavesdropping and surveillance is something of a mystery.

There have been recent efforts in Congress — unsuccessful so far — to require the Justice Department to estimate how many people in the U.S. have had their calls and email monitored under a 2008 law that gave the government more surveillance authority. And a recent AP investigation revealed the existence of a secret police unit in New York that monitored daily life inside Muslim communities.

For all of their concern about protecting personal rights, Americans — just like policymakers and the courts — show far more willingness to allow intrusions into the lives of foreigners than into their own.

The poll turned up sharp divisions among Americans on whether torture — banned by the government — should have any place in combating terrorism. Fifty-two percent said torture can be justified at least sometimes to obtain information about terrorist activity. Forty-six percent said it can never or only rarely be justified.

The AP poll was conducted July 28 to Aug. 15. It involved landline and cell phone interviews with 1,087 adults nationwide, and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 4.1 percentage points.

Find expressions in the text corresponding to the Russian word combinations:

• все более и более

• неприкосновенность частной жизни

• незначительное большинство

• выразить резкий протест

• нежелание отказаться от каких-бы то ни было свобод

• несмотря ни на что

• преодолеть затруднительное положение

• пойти на компромисс

• прослушка, перехват данных

• слежка

• вмешательство в личную жизнь

In the survey, find examples of generalisations, qualifiers, cautious words

Search the Internet for more information about the Patriot Act, its provisions and extension debates.

Are you prepared to sacrifice some of your freedoms to fight terrorism? Prove your point with convincing arguments.

WORD FORMATION TECHNIQUES: COMPOUND WORDS

In texts and you have come across such words as broadband, website, healthcare, wellbeing, self-centered, outline and many others.

All of them are compound words formed according to different patterns some of which are:

~ two nouns

~ two adjectives

~ two verbs

~ a noun joined to an adjective

Unscramble the second part of the following compound words using their definitions as a hint or as a check

fool

a) taking unnecessary risks (dyrah)

b) made in such a way that even a fool can understand or use safely (opofr)

heart

a) central part of a country (daln)

b) burning sensation in the chest caused by indigestion (runb)

c) a man whose good looks excite romantic feelings in women (hbort)

head

a) forward motion, progress (yaw)

b) self-willed, obstinate (nrgsot)

c) to identify a suitable person to fill a business position (tnuh)

foot

a) a safe place for the foot, especially when climbing (dohl)

b) a row of lights along the front of a stage (thigtls)

c) additional piece of information printed at the bottom of a page (toen)

over

a) covered with clouds (stac)

b) sum of money drawn or borrowed from a bank in excess of one's deposit (fradt)

c) failure to notice something (thsig)

by

a) a road that enables the traveller to avoid going through the centre of a town (sasp)

b) regulation made by a local authority (wal)

c) substance made or obtained during the manufacture of some other substance (cduropt)

light

a) cheerful, free from care (edterah)

b) clever at stealing (denigfre)

c) giddy; thoughtless or forgetful (daehde)

stand

a) unfriendly, distant in manner (fosfih)

b) stoppage (listl)

c) thing or person to be used or called on if necessary (yb)

up

a) tumult, violent disturbance (avepulah)

b) outcome, result (sputoh)

c) padding and covering of chairs and sofas (sruhopelty)

lay

a) person who is not an expert with regard to a profession, science or art (amn)

b) manner in which something is arranged or disposed (tou)

c) piece of surfaced land at the side of a road where cars may park (yb)

show

a) place where goods are displayed (omor)

b) a full declaration of facts, intentions, or strength (wnod)

c) something produced mainly for show or to attract attention (ecipe)

quick

a) mentally alert (tiwetd)

b) easily made angry (peredmet)

c) expanse of soil that sucks down anyone who tries to walk on it (dans)

back

a) accumulation of work or business not yet attended to (ogl)

b) strength of character, courage (nobe)

c) speaking evil of a person (tibign)

eye

a) circumstance that brings enlightenment and surprise (norepe)

b) an ugly or unpleasant thing to look at (rose)

c) one who has himself seen something happen (sniwest)

Use a hyphen to combine one of the words in box A with one of the words in box B. Then complete the sentences.

A double long short one B edged sighted sided term

We need a................................plan for our transport systems that will take into account future growth.

A warning sign was put at the site of the accident as a................................measure until a new wall was built.

This argument appears to be a little.................................I'd like to hear the other side as well.

The management agreed to employ five more members of staff, which in hindsight was a very............................decision because within a few weeks we were still understaffed.

Globalisation is a................................sword. It promotes multiculturalism while it erodes the local culture.

WRITING PRACTICE: MAKING A GLOSSARY

A glossary is an alphabetical list of terms in a particular domain of knowledge with the definitions for those terms. Traditionally, a glossary appears at the end of a report and includes terms which are either newly introduced, uncommon or specialized. In a general sense, a glossary contains explanations of concepts relevant to a certain field of study or action.

The word is derived from the Latin glossa, which means “foreign word.”

A bilingual glossary is a list of terms in one language which are defined in a second language or glossed by synonyms (or at least near-synonyms) in another language.

Here are the guidelines to making a bilingual glossary:

• Choose an article from an English source (approximately 15,000 printed characters) you might want to use in drafting your diploma paper.

• When choosing the article make sure it is a piece of academic writing containing relevant data and abounding in terms.

• Go through the article, locate the terms and concepts you think need explanation, make a list of the terms (there should be no less than 20 items on your list)

• Alphabetize your term list and insert the words in the left column of a table.

• Fill the right column with the definitions of the terms borrowed either from dictionaries or other reliable sources

Now follow the guidelines and make a glossary of terms based on a chosen article.

CONFUSING WORDS

exhausting/exhaustive

a. _____ tests were carried out to discover the cause of the plane's engine failure.

b. The older members of the group found the long journey quite _____.

continual/continuous

a. The deadline was getting closer and we were under _____ pressure to reach our target.

b. The exhaustion felt by new parents comes from the _____ disturbance of their sleep patterns.

elicit/illicit

a. London has become a centre for the _____ trade in rare books with dozens of works being recovered by police in recent months.

b. Barroso _____ little enthusiasm despite being voted European commission president.

loath/loathe

a. Love or _____ her, the legend of the Iron Lady lives on 20 years after she came to power.

b. The UK is one of the most watched societies in the world, yet the police are _____ to release crime data

prosecute/persecute

a. To be given refugee status you have to prove that you have had an awful time, that you have been _____, at risk of torture or actually tortured.

b. South Korea said Tuesday it plans to _____ five Somali pirates captured by South Korean commandos during a raid on a hijacked cargo ship

conscious/conscientious

a. Toyota has unveiled a new retro-futurist concept vehicle geared for a more cost _____ consumer.

b. A Birmingham Imam says that Muslims should not fight in the British armed forces on _____ grounds due to their presence in Iraq and Afghanistan.

READING 5: SKIMMING

DOCTORS CHANGE EUTHANASIA STANCE

In a narrow vote last year, the BMA adopted a neutral stance on euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. The decision has now been overturned after 65% of the 500 doctors at the BMA's meeting in Belfast voted against assisted dying. A bill to relax current law was blocked by the House of Lords in May, but is likely to be reintroduced.

The bill, sponsored by cross-bench peer Lord Joffe, would give doctors the right to prescribe drugs that a terminally ill patient in severe pain could use to end their own life.

However, many doctors were unhappy at the vote, remaining implacably opposed to any form of assisted dying. They argued that improvements in palliative care meant that even the most stricken of patients could be helped effectively through their final days.

In a heated debate, doctors argued for and against. Some claimed that despite the "blanket cliche" of good palliative care "people still die in undignified misery.

Others insisted that terminally ill patients were mostly concerned with the effect their illness was having on their families.

The vote lobbied by religious lobby groups found 30% of GPs would be willing, in principle and if the law permitted, to write a prescription to assist a patient to die if their suffering could not be relieved by palliative care.

Doctors are split and at the moment the religious lobby is winning the tactical battle, but society should not allow religious views on the sanctity of life to trump the right to autonomy of a patient who does not share those views.

|FOLLOW-UP|This text is followed by arguments against the idea that assisted suicide should be legalized. Look them through and suggest your |

| |counter-arguments supporting the idea. |

• Modern palliative care is immensely flexible and effective, and helps to preserve quality of life as far as is possible. There is no need for terminally ill patients ever to be in pain, even at the very end of the course of their illness.

• Demanding that family take part in such a decision can be an unbearable burden: many may resent a loved one’s decision to die, and would be emotionally scared by the prospect of being in any way involved with their death.

• There is also a danger that the terminally ill may be pressured into ending their lives by others who are not prepared to support them through their illness.

• It is vital that a doctor’s role not be confused. The guiding principle of medical ethics is to do no harm: a physician must not be involved in deliberately harming their patient. Without this principle, the medical profession would lose a great deal of trust.

Listen to Remarks on the Human Rights Agenda for the 21st Century

(Hillary Rodham Clinton’s speech in Georgetown University's Gaston Hall, Washington, DC on December 14, 2009)

When listening, make a list of human rights terms.



READING 6: READ AND DISCUSS THE TEXT

EU: Rights Abuse at Home Ignored

Alarming Decline in Europe’s Record

January 22, 2012

(Brussels) – The European Union and member governments proved unwilling to tackle human rights abuse at home last year, even as they proclaimed the issue’s importance in inspiring the Arab Spring, Human Rights Watch said in its World Report 2012.

Human Rights Watch found worrying trends on human rights in the European Union region, highlighting events in nine member states and developments in the areas of migration and asylum, discrimination and intolerance, and counterterrorism policy.

A separate essay in the report analyses long-term trends on human rights in Europe. It concludes that declining respect for rights, weak enforcement when violations do occur, the growing influence of extremist parties, and the retreat from the idea that rights apply equally to everyone amount to a crisis that demands urgent action.

While the idea of a human rights crisis in Europe may seem far-fetched, a closer examination reveals deeply worrying trends, Human Rights Watch said. Four developments stand out: the erosion of rights under counterterrorism policy; growing intolerance and abusive policies toward minorities and migrants; the rise of populist extremist parties and their influence on mainstream politics; and the declining effectiveness of the institutions and tools that protect human rights.

Policy responses to migration from North Africa exemplified the EU’s negative approach in 2011. These included calls to limit free movement inside EU internal borders, disputes over the responsibility for rescuing boat migrants in peril, and a reluctance to resettle refugees from Libya.

Populist extremist parties remained strong across the EU region, corroding mainstream politics, especially on issues related to Roma, Muslims, and migrants. EU governments frequently responded by echoing these parties’ criticism of minorities and pursuing policies that infringed on human rights.

Racist and xenophobic violence was a serious problem in several countries, including Greece, Italy, and Hungary, with inadequate response from those governments. The horrific terrorist attacks in Norway in July by a xenophobic extremist who killed 77 people highlighted the dangers of unchecked intolerance, while the Norwegian government decision to respond with “more openness, more democracy and more humanity” offered a positive example. New laws in France and Belgium banning full-face Muslim veils entered into force, in a year when UK and French leaders declared multiculturalism a failed policy.

Counterterrorism measures in European countries violated rights. Spain allows incommunicado detention for up to 13 days. Reforms of police custody rules in France left in place powers to interrogate terrorism suspects without a lawyer present, and to restrict access to a lawyer for up to 72 hours. Legislative proposals to limit abusive counterterrorism pre-charge detention and control orders in the UK were undermined by provisions allowing them to be restored in an emergency. 

“The net result of human rights developments in Europe causes great concern,” Ward said. “Without concerted government action, the next generation of Europeans may see human rights as an optional extra rather than a core value.” 

What is the situation of human rights in your country? Do you share the apprehension of the author that it is declining in many regions of the world? What in your opinion contributes to the fact?

Active vocabulary:

to quell (the protesters, protests, dissent, opposition…) - to suppress

freedom from torture

~ of conscience, of speech, of access to information, of movement…

second-order freedoms

to have the right to sth./ to exercise the right to sth.

inalienable (right) – integral, inherent, absolute неотъемлемый

to empower (sb) – наделять полномочиями, предоставлять право

responsibility

to accept / admit / assume / claim / take / take on (the) / claim responsibility — взять на себя ответственность

to bear / exercise (the) responsibility — нести бремя, груз, тяжесть ответственности

to discharge / fulfill a responsibility / perform a duty / carry out, fulfill, meet commitments / obligations – выполнять обязательства

to disclaim responsibility — снимать (с себя) ответственность, слагать (с себя) полномочия

to dodge (taxes)/ evade (taxes, law – обходить закон) / shirk (school) responsibility — избегать, уклоняться от ответственности

to share (the) responsibility — разделять ответственность

release / free / relieve / exempt from / responsibility – освобождать от ответственности

to respond to the threat

conscription (involuntary draft), mandatory military service (compulsory/voluntary, paramilitary, external)

conscientious objection

indigenous peoples

refugees / internally displaced persons / asylum seekers / migrants

gender inequality

to have equal access to (education and health services)

to strip sb. of the vote / to forbid sb. from voting / to disenfranchise / to ban sb. from voting / to withhold the vote / to withdraw, to remove, to refuse sb., to deny sb. the right to vote /

physician-assisted suicide

terminally ill patient

assisted dying

palliative care

asylum

to grant political asylum — предоставить политическое убежище

to receive asylum — получить убежище

to seek asylum — искать убежище

to deny smb. asylum — отказать кому-л. в защите

READING : ADDITIONAL TEXTS

Nothing new under the sun

May 12th 2011

The Economist

Some dictators may have fallen, but human-rights abuses continue

THE world really can become a better place—that seemed to be the belief of the protesters who have thronged streets in the Middle East. Sadly, reality attests to the wisdom of Ecclesiastes: “The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done.”

Take the impact of technology. Facebook and other social media services have created opportunities for dissidents and revolutionaries to organise and voice their opposition. But those in power have discovered that they, too, can use the internet, in their case to stifle freedom of speech. The dream of all dictators is to know as much about you as Google does.

Authoritarian states have also learned how to use the language of human rights to legitimise their oppressive tactics, for instance by claiming to defend religious groups. But their tools of abuse—violence, torture and censorship—remain depressingly familiar. The grand tradition of making opponents “disappear,” perfected by the military dictatorship is still flourishing today.

Post-revolutionary leaders can find it all too easy to slip into the abusive habits of their predecessors. The transitional governments use the methods of the ousted regimes: when demonstrations break out, police uses tear gas and live ammunition, protesters are beaten and journalists have their equipment seized.

Nor do governments have a monopoly on violence. From Jamaica to South Africa, gays and lesbians continue to be the victims of vicious intolerance. Lesbians are raped in an effort to “correct” their sexuality. LGBT say such is the violence typically directed at its people that it is remarkable that only few have been murdered in the past decade

Yet there was also brighter news. As those in power become more inventive in their clampdowns, so do their opponents. Some have started to help victims make their experiences public. In the age of Facebook and Google, the truth remains the most powerful weapon of all.

Do indigenous peoples benefit from 'development'?

We need to think about whether development brings any benefits to those who are largely self-sufficient – like many of the world's 150 million tribal people

What's "development" for? That may be straightforward to people who don't have water or food, or sewerage in urban areas. But, although millions still lack such basics, they form only a tiny part of what passes for development these days. The duplicity of politics and business ensures much else – arms, for example – is shoehorned into the same category.

What should development mean for those who are largely self-sufficient, getting their own food and building their dwellings where the water is still clean – like many of the world's 150 million tribal people? Has development got anything helpful for them, or has it simply got it in for them?

It's easy to see where it has led. Leaving aside the millions who succumbed to the colonial invasion, in some of the world's most "developed" countries (Australia, Canada and the US) development has turned most of the survivors into dispossessed paupers. Take any measure of what it ought to mean: high income, longevity, employment, health; low rates of addiction, suicide, imprisonment and domestic violence, and you find that indigenous people in the US, Canada and Australia are by far the worst off on every count – but no one seems to heed the lesson.

These are the consequences of a dispossession more total in North America and Australia than almost anywhere on Earth. The colonists were determined to steal tribal lands, and unquestioning about their own superiority. They espoused politico-economic models in which workers produced for distant markets, and had to pay for the privilege. The natives, using no money, paying no taxes, contributing little to the marketplace until forced to, were "backward". At best, they were to be integrated to serve colonist society.

Colonialism set out to take away their self-sufficiency, on their own territory, and lead them to glorious productivity, as menials, on someone else's. There's little point in calling for retroactive apologies for this because it's not confined to the past: most development schemes foisted on tribal peoples today point in exactly the same direction.

Two of its main themes are housing and education. Traditional housing has many benefits – not least the fact that it's free – but development decrees it must be replaced by modern dwellings. In West Papua, the tribespeople put their pigs in the new houses and live in the old. Rwanda recently outlawed thatch altogether; everyone must use metal sheets, by law.

So what about modern education? In Australia, mixed-race children were forced into distant boarding schools to "breed out" their "Aboriginalness" and turn them into an underclass. From frozen Siberia to sunlit Botswana, boarding schools remain a main plank in integrationist policies, which destroy more than educate. It's no hidden conspiracy: it's openly designed to be about turning people into workers, scornful of their own tribal heritage.

Many indigenous people have observed that even the modern medical attention they might receive from the wealthiest governments doesn't begin to solve the illnesses the same government's policies have inflicted on them. It isn't "backwardness" that makes many tribal peoples reject development projects, it's rational anxiety about the future.

As for largescale infrastructure development – dams and mines, even irrigation – its real effect on the ground is invariably to enrich the elites while impoverishing the locals.

So is it possible to offer tribal peoples any truly beneficial development? Yes, if we accept their right to reject what we, with our "advanced" wisdom, can give; we have to stop thinking them childish when they make decisions we wouldn't. Everyone wants control over their future, and not everyone wants the same things out of life, but such truisms are hardly ever applied.

Development, at least for most tribal peoples, isn't really about lifting people out of poverty, it's about masking the takeover of their territories. The deception works because the conviction "we know best" is more deeply ingrained even than it was a generation ago; Victorian-era levels of narrow-mindedness are returning.

In a 21st century of expensive water, food, housing, education, healthcare and power, self-sufficiency has its attraction. It may not boost GDP figures, but there are many tribal peoples in the world who live longer and healthier lives than millions in nearby slums. Who's to say they've made a bad choice?

Human rights win wider recognition in Britain

The issue of human rights is becoming part of our everyday lives, though public perception of what it means can often still remain hazy

Jason Bennetto

guardian.co.uk

Power of the act: Mersey Care NHS Trust used human rights law to help Carol Legge from Wavertree, Liverpool, who has learning difficulties, to leave a care home after many years and live by herself Photograph: Julian Hamilton

Since the Human Rights Act came into force in 2000, the UK public has developed a culture of wider respect for human rights, says the Equality and Human Rights Commission.

The commission's inquiry shows how many individuals have been able to cite the act to negotiate better conditions or treatment from the National Health Service, all the vast machinery of local and central government and the police, courts and criminal justice system.

However, this is against a background of widespread misunderstanding and mistrust of the act. It is disturbing but perhaps not surprising that, according to research for the inquiry, around 40% of British people believe the only beneficiaries of human rights legislation are criminals and terrorists.

Much of this is certainly due to bad press given to the act. The media almost always focuses on stories that reinforce notions that human rights is a high-minded but nebulous concept, exploited by slippery lawyers and nit-picking bureaucrats.

The inquiry discovered that much of the act's day-to-day benefits among the public sector have gone unnoticed by a wider audience, while attention centres on a small number of high-profile civil rights cases.

But the act nevertheless ensures that the same principles of fairness, equality, justice and respect for individuals that are usually cited in such cases can equally be applied to ordinary, everyday situations: how you should be allowed to eat as a patient in hospital; the protection of the vulnerable, elderly, infirm or handicapped from neglect or abuse while in the care of the state; casual bullying in schools and workplaces that can easily become institutionalised; or the disregard of the rights of gay and lesbian couples in adoption cases.

Katie Ghose, director of the British Institute of Human Rights, the charity that conducts training courses for public sector workers, says: "In schools, hospitals, and care homes, people are using the Human Rights Act to challenge poor treatment and demand better services."

One such course involved the Mersey Care NHS Trust, which enabled people with learning difficulties and mental health problems to understand and exercise their human rights, through role play and education. Among the beneficiaries was Carole Legge (pictured) who suffers from learning difficulties, but was encouraged during the programme to leave a care home after many years and live by herself, taking her own decisions about her daily needs, such as shopping and socializing, assisted by regular carers. "I can look after myself more. I feel much more independent because now I understand my rights,'' she said.

But not only does the Act give ordinary people the ability to seek better treatment from the state but also imposes some "positive obligations" on public bodies to help create a much broader culture of respect for human rights.

The inquiry heard that this approach was encouraging change in many ways. In one hospital's A&E department, patients were being exposed to the public each time a curtain was pulled back. One day the matron said: "Have you thought about human rights and dignity?" The simple solution was to fit overlapping curtains.

And, if matters cannot be resolved, the public still has the right of legal redress. Five protesters arrested in Wakefield while holding a demonstration about pensions during a visit by the Queen won damages after the police were found to have breached the right to free expression and peaceful protest. Individuals can still also go to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. Diane Blood's battle to use her late husband's sperm to start a family is a well-known example that does not involve civil liberties and terrorist groups.

But it's on everyday aspects of life that the act is having the biggest influence, says Ann Abraham, parliamentary and health services ombudsman. She told the inquiry: "I detect a sea change ... with a definite shift away from seeing human rights as being just about civil liberties, crime, national security, to a much more inclusive approach that recognises the small places where human rights play a part in ordinary daily life."

WHEN FREEDOM STUMBLES

Jan 17th 2008

The Economist

OVER the past half century, it often seemed that the advance of democracy and basic freedoms—the right to speak and write without fear of persecution, to demand political change, and so on—was ineluctable. First the Europeans let their colonies go. Then the Soviet empire fell, and with it the communist monopoly on power in Eastern Europe. And apartheid ended in South Africa.

Recently, though, freedom's progress may have come to a halt, or even gone into reverse. That, at least, is the conclusion of Freedom House, an august American lobby group whose observations on the state of liberty are a keenly watched indicator. Its annual report speaks of a “profoundly disturbing deterioration” in the global picture, with reversals seen in 38 countries—nearly four times as many as are showing any sign of improvement.

Using the think-tank's long-established division of the world into “free”, “partly free” and “not free” countries, the planet is still a better place than it was a quarter-century ago. In other words, there are still net gains from the fall of communism, at least in central Europe, and the decline of militarism in Latin America. But the short-term trends seem worrying. Last year was the second in a row when liberty inched back. An especially disturbing sign, says the organisation, is the number of countries in all regions of the world where a previously hopeful trend has gone into reverse.

So where exactly does Freedom House come from? It was founded in 1941 by Wendell Willkie and Eleanor Roosevelt, as a counter to Nazism. During the cold war it “fought the good fight” against Soviet-backed tyrannies but also had harsh words for dictators on America's side of the stand-off. Freedom House not only watches the state of liberty, it also calls itself a “catalyst” for the peaceful advancement of civil and democratic rights through “analysis, advocacy and action”. But it has firm ideas about which country is best placed to promote these ideals: it has formally stated that whatever their differences, all trustees are agreed that “American leadership in international affairs is essential to the cause of human rights and freedom.” When America attacked Iraq in 2003, Freedom House wished the campaign well.

Nor does the organisation conceal its financial ties to the American government, which supplies about 80% of its income. But it strongly denies that it acts as an arm of the government, or that it holds back from criticising America and its friends when that is warranted. And it would be hard to argue that diplomatic friendship with the United States has ever guaranteed a country a free pass from the think-tank. Israel, a close American friend, used to get relatively poor grades—a 2 for political rights and a 3 for civil liberties on a descending scale of 1 to 7. In recent years, Israel has improved its scores, but only in 2005 did its civil-liberty rating rise to 2.

Insiders say that in years past, there was some internal debate at Freedom House over whether or not economic welfare, which affects the range of choices people can make, should be included in the calculus of liberty. But the decision has been to keep economic factors out. This helps to explain why China, in the midst of the horrors of its Cultural Revolution when the surveys began, has hardly managed to improve on its early, rock-bottom ratings. Its “civil liberties” are still assessed at a dismal 6.

How much freer do people feel when they have a few yuan in their pocket (and access to other goodies like computers and compact discs)? That is an endlessly debatable question. By contrast the sort of liberties and non-liberties measured by Freedom House (multi-party elections, due process and so on) are relatively tangible and easy to assess. That alone may be quite a good argument for having at least one index whose stated purpose is to assess formal freedoms—to vote, speak, assemble and so on. That does not imply that other factors, such as prosperity, have no bearing on how free people feel.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download