Impunity Watch: North America

Honduran Congress to Determine the Return of Deposed President

By Brenda Lopez Romero
Impunity Watch Reporter, North America

TEGUCIGALPA, Honduras – An accord was reached after several weeks of confrontation and negotiation between deposed President Zelaya and de facto President Micheletti, and Zelaya’s sudden appearance in the Brazilian embassy in Honduras’ capital, where Zelaya continues to be sheltered.

Zelaya inside the Brazilian embassy (PHOTO: BBC News)

The agreement was signed between deposed Zelaya’s team and the four month long interim government. The accord will create a power-sharing government and calls for the recognition of the controversial November presidential poll that lead to the political unease in Honduras. 

There was international condemnation and actions when Zelaya was exiled on 28 June 2009 after a successful coup. Micheletti claimed that Zelaya was removed constitutionally after he attempted to amend Honduras’ Constitution to obtain his reelection. The United States government is lifting its sanction and starting to issue visas once more.  

Stephen Gibbs with BBC News believes that the Honduran Congress, who originally voted to remove Zelaya from power, will attempt to bring him back. The Congress must review and approve the signed accord. Congress will start its deliberations after the Honduran Supreme Court provides a non-binding advisory opinion on the agreement’s validity. 

For more information, please see:

BBC News - Congress Considers Honduras Deal - 31 October 2009 

The Associated Press - Pact to Restore Ousted Honduran Leader in Congress – 31 October 2009

The Washington Post - A Win in Honduras - 31 October 2009 

Plaintiffs in Suit Against "Redskins" Logo Receive Expert Support

By Brenda Lopez Romero
Impunity Watch Reporter, North America

WASHINGTON, D.C., United States – In September, a group of Native American plaintiffs sought a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court to hear their case against the controversial “Redskins” National Football League team and logo. The plaintiffs seek Supreme Court review of a statute of limitations, laches, that the lower court determined barred their suit. The plaintiffs argue that it does not apply in their case, and even if it did there is precedent for overturning the lower court’s decision. 

Plaintiff Suzan Shown Harjo (PHOTO: Indian Country Today)

The plaintiffs won support in amicus briefs from renowned research experts in social science fields specializing in stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination. They also have wide legal support from social justice advocates and child psychologists from top universities around the country. The amicus brief filed includes scholarly evidence that there is an “extensive and pervasive” public harm by the use of Indian mascots in professional sports. The experts also wrote to the Supreme Court that “social science research shows that the use of ethnic slurs like ‘redskin’ perpetuates harmful stereotypes and leads to discrimination.” The plaintiffs liken the derogatory term “redskins” with the use of “niggers” against African Americans. 

"Can You Imagine?" (PHOTO: Blue Corn Comics)

Further, historians noted that the U.S. government used “redskins” in reference to bounties placed on scalped Indian heads. Psychologists add that Indian mascots damage Native American youth’s self-esteem, feelings of community worth, and limit the aspirations of Native American high school and college students.

The social justice advocate stated in their amicus brief that Indian mascots are regressive because they set back equality in American society. They wrote “either a trademark is disparaging or it is not. And if it is, it should not enjoy the perpetual protections of the United States government.”

The National Congress of American Indians and several other Indian advocacy organizations filed a third amicus brief and argued that the Redskins’ trademark is reproachful to all Native American people and should not have become a registered trademark. 

The multidisciplinary amicus brief provide ways for the public and the Court to understand the significance of the case. Richard Guest, a legal expert with the Native American Rights Fund stated “it becomes not just a legal argument, but a moral and psychological one, too.”

For more information, please see:

Indian Country Today - Redskins Litigants Win Support from Psychologists, Justice Advocates – 27 October 2009

Indian Country Today - Redskins Litigants Press Supreme Court Action – 23 October 2009

Berlik Law - D.C. Circuit Upholds Redskins Trademark Victory – 18 May 2009

President Obama Signs Hate Crimes Legislation

By Stephen Kopko

Impunity Watch Reporter, North America

WASHINGTON D.C., United States - On Wednesday, US President Obama signed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Act expanding the number of groups that are protected under federal hate crimes laws. The legislation extends the previous hate crimes law to include those crimes committed against people because of their gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. It also allows the Justice Department to take control of an investigation if a state fails to implement hate crimes legislation.

The first hate crimes bill was passed in 1968 following the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. That law made it a federal crime to target individuals because of their race, religion, or ethnicity. Under the law, judges were granted the authority to impose harsher sentences on crimes motivated by racial animus. The legislation also granted authority to the Justice Department to assist local law enforcement in investigating hate crimes.

In 2007 alone, there were 7,624 reported hate crimes, fifty percent of which were based on race and seventeen percent on sexual orientation. The recent legislation signed by Obama was first introduced in 1998. Both the House of Representatives and the Senate passed differing versions of the bill since that time but it never made it to the President's desk for his signature. Obama stated at the signing that after waiting ten years for the legislation, "we've passed inclusive hate crimes legislation to help protect our citizens based on what they look like, who they love, how they pray or who they are." 

The legislation is named for two victims of hate crimes. Matthew Shepard was a gay college student who was murdered and tied to a fence because of his sexual orientation. James Byrd was an African American who was chained to a pickup truck and dragged to death because of his race. The families of both victims were in attendance at the historic signing of the law. 

Critics of the legislation believe that it is usurping the power of the states to implement and prosecute violators of their own criminal laws. Forty-five states have hate crimes laws that impose harsher penalties for violators. Proponents of the legislation argue that the expansion of the federal law actually enables states to implement and prosecute their own hate crimes laws and assists those states with limited resources to investigate hates crimes. Judy Shepard, mother of Matthew Shepard, stated that hate crimes legislation provides solace for those minority groups concerned that their government would not provide appropriate protection against bigotry. 

For more information, please see:

AP - Obama Hails Expansion of Hate Crimes Legislation - 29 October 2009

Baltimore Sun - A Blow Against Bias - 29 October 2009

Washington Post - Obama Signs Bill Expanding Hate Protection to Gays - 29 October 2009

20 Bystanders Watch as 15 year-old is Gang-Raped and Assaulted

By Brenda Lopez Romero
Impunity Watch Reporter, North America

CALIFORNIA, United States – A group of bystanders outside of a high school in San Francisco, during its homecoming dance, either watched or participated in a violent gang rape and robbery of a fifteen year-old high school student.

The Richmond police estimated that ten suspects were involved in the gang rape and as many as twenty people simply stood by and watched the violence for over two and half hours. A female student not on the scene heard people talking about the incident and called 911 while the attack was still going on. However, no one at the scene tried to stop the assault or call the police for assistance. The police believe that a suspect was actually taking pictures and video on his cellular phone. Detective Ken Greco said "it was a pretty brutal scene." The victim was still being assaulted when officers arrived and the suspects fled leaving the young woman semi-conscious. Detective Greco said in disbelief, "It was like a horror movie. I can't believe not one person felt compelled to help her."

According to Richmond police the young woman was repeatedly assaulted, raped, and robbed by at least seven suspects after she left a homecoming dance early to wait for her father to pick her up.

Richmond police arrested two people, a fifteen year-old young man whose name has not been released, and Manuel Ortega, a nineteen year-old former Richmond High School student. Three more arrests followed of a seventeen year-old young man who turned himself in to police, a sixteen year-old young man, and a twenty one year-old man. Richmond Police Lt. Mark Gagan said "these are people who played a significant role in the incident [and] I'm confident that more arrests will be made." Richmond Mayor Gayle McLaughlin said "we are outraged that this happened."

Marin Trujillo, an official with the school district, defended the school security stating that once students leave the dance they "don't take them home." Trujillo said there were four police officers, five chaperones, and a host of teachers to supervise the dance. In the school sweep to make sure no one remained on campus after the event ended, the security did not search the corner on the outskirts of school grounds where the girl was attacked.

Furthermore, Trujillo said parents are responsible for the safe return of their children to their homes from school functions and emphasized "the dance itself was a success in terms of safety. Nothing happened at the event. We're currently exploring our protocols to make sure that we can expand them, and make sure that this isolated incident doesn't get repeated again."

For more information, please see:

ABC News - California Police Arrest 5 in Teen's Homecoming Gang Rape - 28 October 2009  

CNN - Gang Rape Raises Questions about Bystanders' Role – 28 October 2009

L.A. Times - Outrage Over Gang Rape of 15-Year-Old Girl; More Arrests Made Overnight – 28 October 2009

Dallas Police Investigated for Ticketing Drivers for Not Speaking English

By Stephen Kopko   

Impunity Watch Reporter, North America

DALLAS, United States - Since 2007, the Dallas Police Department has ticketed thirty-nine people during traffic stops for not speaking English. Six police officers are primarily responsible for issuing the citations. Although the citations were never formally prosecuted, each violation is billed as a summary offense carrying a $204 penalty.

The "non-English speaking driver" offense is a federal offense that normally applies to only commercial motorists. Senior Corporal Glenn White, president of the Dallas Police Association, stated that the error was harmless. According to White, when an officer is issuing a citation, the computer will show a list of offenses, one of which is the "non-English speaking driver" offense. Police officers were then confused and thought that was a violation the police department recognized. Nevertheless, the Dallas Police Department does not enforce that violation. 

The issue was discovered on 2 October 2009 when Ernestina Mondragon was issued a citation for the violation. Mondragon was pulled over by a trainee police officer for negotiating an illegal U-turn and not having her drivers license. She challenged the citation in court and had her charges dismissed.

After the Mondragon case, Dallas Police Chief David Kunkle stated that an investigation into the issuing of the citations would be conducted by the Department. He also stated that any pending cases regarding the violation would be dismissed and those who paid the fine would be reimbursed. Dallas Administrative Courts are also investigating whether any citations went before a judge or were prosecuted. Administrative Judge C. Victor Lander will hold any warrants due to the violation, and directed the prosecutor's office to hold any cases regarding the violation as well.

Latino Rights Groups are calling for a full investigation into the practice. Some groups claim that the actions by the police officers amounted to racial profiling. According to Domingo Garcia, the attorney hired to represent Mondragon, the issue did not center around whether someone should learn English, but stems from issuing citations for a law that does not exist against a discriminated population. Brenda Reyes, a member of the League of United Latin American Citizens, echoed the same sentiments as Garcia. 

For more information, please see:

NPR - Number Of Dallas Police Who Issued Tickets for 'Not Speaking English' Grows - 27 October 2009

UPI - Tickets for Not Speaking English Probed - 27 October 2009

Dallas Morning News - Dallas Police Ticketed 39 Drivers in 3 years For Not Speaking English - 26 October 2009

Canada Seeks Judicial Review of Asylum Granted to White South African

By William Miller

Impunity Watch Reporter, North America

Brandon Huntley, a citizen of South Africa, was granted asylum by the Canadian Immigration Board (PHOTO: Times Online)

OTTAWA, Canada – The Canadian federal government is seeking judicial review of a decision by the Canadian Immigration Board to grant asylum to Brandon Huntley, a white South African, because of his race. The government is calling the ruling perverse and says it "can only serve to perpetuate racism."

Huntley fled South Africa last April and went to Canada where his sister lives. He applied for refugee status, saying he had been victimized because of his race and the South African government was not able to protect him. He claimed he had been assaulted seven times by black South Africans who referred to him as a “white dog” and a “settler.”

On September 1, the one-man Canadian Immigration Board found that his fear of persecution by blacks was justified. William Davis, the sole member of the panel, said Huntley would be exposed to racism if sent back to South Africa because Huntley would “stick out like a sore thumb due to his [color] in any part of the country.”

The ruling outraged the South African government, which points out that Huntley never reported any of the incidents of discrimination to the police. Huntley claims that the police force in South Africa is predominantly black and is universally dismissive of complaints of racism filed by white South Africans.

In asking to review the decision, the Canadian government argues Huntley did not show clear and convincing evidence that the South African government could not protect him, and that in making its decision, the Board  had relied on an inaccurate perception of the actual conditions in South Africa. The Canadian government claims that Huntley would not stick out like a sore thumb because whites make up a large minority in South Africa, ranging from nineteen to twenty-four percent of the population, depending on the region. They further state that while crime is a problem in South Africa, it does not exclusively target whites and affects all races equally.

While the South African government is applauding the decision to challenge the ruling, the Immigration Board’s decision has found support from white South Africans who claim that the South African government has done nothing to stop a continuing wave of violence against whites in South Africa which started in 1994. They also claim that authorities often dismiss their complaints and that the government has intentionally failed to report crime statistics to hide racial motivations in criminal acts.

The South African government, however, says that racially motivated crime is not prevalent in South Africa. They acknowledge that nearly one quarter of the white population has fled the country but blame it on disease and natural disasters. They support this claim by noting black South Africans have also left the country.

For more information, please see:

Montreal Gazette - Asylum for White South African 'Perverse,' Ottawa Says - 22 October 2009

The Times - Dlamini-Zuma Welcomes Canada's Decision on Huntley - 21 October 2009

Times Online - Persecuted White South African Brandon Huntley Made International Race Refugee - 3 September 2009

Canadian Law Provides Loophole for Gay Couple in Russia

By William Miller

Impunity Watch Reporter, North America

 

Irina Fedova-Fet And Irina Shipitko flew to Toronto, Canada to get married on Friday in hopes that it would be recognized by Russian Courts when they return (PHOTO: Toronto Star)

TORONTO, Canada – Two Russian women, Irina Fedova-Fet and Irina Shipitko, were married at a court house in North York, Ontario on Friday. The two hope that the Russian courts will recognize the marriage as legal when they return there on Tuesday.

Canada has recognized gay marriage since 2001. Russian law, on the other hand, only recognizes marriage between a man and a woman. Fedova-Fet and Shipitko believe they may have found a loophole in gaining recognition of their marriage in Russia. Russian law recognizes foreign marriage certificates but does not mention the sex of the couple. 

Although homosexuality was legalized in Russia in the 1990s, negative attitudes toward homosexuals persist and homosexual couples are denied many of the rights enjoyed by heterosexual couples. Violence against homosexuals remains common. For instance, in 2006 Yury Luzhkov, the mayor of Moscow, banned gay pride parades in the city, denouncing homosexuality as "satanic."

Fedova-Fet and Shipitko are not just trying to have their own marriage recognized but are hoping their marriage will promote a change in Russian marriage law. With her lawyer interpreting for her, Shipitko said: "We are not the only (same-sex) couple in Russia trying to get our relations recognized, and to get married. There are many people who are scared to live together, to go in the streets holding hands.”

Their lawyer, Nicolai Alexeyav, one of the top gay rights attorneys in Russia, also hopes the couples marriage will promote acceptance of gay marriage in Russia. He said: "We are trying to help them, but we are also trying to help many, many couples who do not believe it is possible. It is possible, and they're showing that it is possible."

Shipitko and Fedova-Fet met in Russia five years ago. They applied for a marriage license in Russia in May but were immediately denied. The denial was upheld by the Tverskoi District court on October 6. The two will return to Russia on Tuesday and hope to have their marriage recognized by the Supreme Court of Russia. They plan on filing a complaint with the European Human Rights Commission if the courts fail to recognize their marriage.

For more information, please see:

Toronto Star – From Russia, To Get Married – 25 October 2009

Toronto Sun – Russian Lovers Wed in Toronto – 25 October 2009

CBC – Russian Women Get Married in Toronto – 23 October 2009

El Salvador Sentences Perpetrators for Human Trafficking

By Brenda López Romero
Impunity Watch Reporter, North America

SAN SALVADOR, El Salvador - Two women and a man were sentenced for human trafficking and sexual and labor exploitation this week. The Chief Prosecutor for the Special Unit against Human Trafficking, David Acosta, informed the press that the perpetrators were sentence by judicial courts in the cities of Santa Ana and San Salvador.

Women rescued from trafficking (PHOTO: Mi Gente Informa)

The Specialized Court for Sentencing imposed an eight year sentence on the man, Marco Antonio Godoy León, for his involvement in taking Salvadorian women across borders into Guatemala. Acosta's investigation concluded that Godoy León “operated as a recruiter” falsely promising employment in Guatemala. The victims described that many women were taken to the city of Barberena, Guatemala between 2005 and 2007 with false promises of employment. Once in Guatemala, they were sold for hundreds of dollars for sexual and labor exploitation.  They were forced to work as prostitutes or risk severe physical punishment, which included forced removal to agriculture labor camps until they were again “physically apt to work sexually.”

Acosta explained that the investigation was started when one woman managed to escape in Guatemala. The woman then filed a report with the police and “this permitted the Prosecutor to coordinate with INTERPOL of Guatemala, and the rescue of twenty six women was finalized in August 2007.”

The two women, Eusebia del Carmen Quintanilla and Ángela Hernández, were senteced to ten and six years in prison, respectively, for human trafficking by the Second Court of Sentencing in San Salvador. Hernandez is the daughter of Quintanilla and was introduced into prostitution by her mother. The investigation also found the perpetrators had forced another minor girl into prostitution in the Plaza Libertad in San Salvador. The minor is the niece of Quintanilla, and was discovered to be the victim of a rape crime, with pregnancy resulting. The minor testified that Quintanilla and Hernandez would threaten to take away the minor’s infant child if she disobeyed thier orders.

For more information, please see:

La Prensa Grafica - Emiten dos condenas por prostituir a mujeres – 23 October 2009

Mi Gente Informa - Se logran condenas por Trata de Personas – 23 October 2009 

Terra Noticias - La Policía salvadoreña captura a una mujer por supuestamente prostituir extranjeras – 29 May 2009

Detained Afghan Man Testifies Against U.S. Military

By Stephen Kopko

Impunity Watch Reporter, North America

CHICAGO, Illinois - On Wednesday, Ziaulbaq, an Afghan man who has been detained in the United States for the past fourteen months, finally testified as a witness in a contract corruption case involving United States military personnel.

Ziaulbaq and two other Afghan men have been held by the U.S. under the material witness statute. That statute allows the U.S. government to hold people without charging them with a crime and without any suspicion of wrongdoing for an indefinite period of time. The Justice Department under the Bush administration used the statute to detain Muslim men after the September 11 attacks. The Justice Department's use of the law has led to lawsuits against former Attorney General John Ashcroft and former White House Counsel John Yoo.

In the summer of 2008, Ziaulbaq and the two other detainees were invited to attend an all expenses paid trip to the United States for business purposes. He was an office aide and part time driver for an Afghan contracting company that was used by the U.S. military. Ziaulbaq was under the impression that he was going to the U.S. to attend a conference honoring Afghan businesses. However, when he landed in the U.S. he was detained by law enforcement and jailed for twenty one days.

After Ziaulbaq was released from prison, he was transported to a motel in Chicago. He has lived at the motel with the two other Afghan men for the past year. The men were placed on electronic monitoring for a time for fear that they might return to Afghanistan. They now have more freedoms but rarely venture out of the motel and have a nightly curfew.

The U.S. Government has incurred substantial costs in detaining Ziaulbaq and the other men. They are paid a witness fee of eighty-eight dollars a day. However, the men have difficulty in cashing the checks because banks require photo identification, which they do not have. The U.S. also pays the motel bill between two thousand to three thousand dollars a month to house the men.

Testifying on Wednesday, Ziaulbaq told attorneys that he had no knowledge of the kickbacks to U.S. military personnel. He also testified that he had no responsibilities dealing with financial transactions or authority to make wire transfers. Ziaulbaq wants to return to Afghanistan as quickly as possible to care for his sick wife and six children. He has not seen them for over a year.

For more information, please see:

Washington Post - Afghan Witness, Detained 14 months, Finally Testifies in Bribery Case - 22 October 2009

MSNBC - Afghans Tricked into U.S. Trip, Detained - 10 October 2009

Associated Press - Ex Bush Officials Face Lawsuits Over their Actions - 29 September 2009

Protest Organized Against CNN's Lou Dobbs

By Brenda Lopez Romero
Impunity Watch Reporter, North America

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Advocacy groups seek to remove host Lou Dobbs from CNN because of his hateful speech, particularly against Latinos. Today, CNN aired “Latino in America” and refused to air “Drop Lou Dobbs” advertisements during the program while reaping other ad dollars. The “Latino in America” series presents a positive outlook on the beneficial impact of Latinos in America.    

Immigrant groups liken Dobbs' reportage to an attack against immigrants and Latinos; some going so far as to call it "xenophobia" and "hate speech." Furthermore, they take affront that his show is promoted as a legitimate news program. Dobbs has stated, “if I said it, it’s a fact.” However, his critics say that he either does not have data or misrepresents information. Dobbs blames immigrants for crime, disease and the economic recession of the U.S., and claims that protests against his style of reportage on immigration and border issues are a "witch hunt" by partisan groups that want to silence the truth. It is rumored that Dobbs could be switching to the Fox News Network.

His detractors maintain that Dobbs' segment promotes racism and hatred towards people of Latino origin in the U.S. They point to Dobbs' endorsement of extremist groups like the “Minuteman Project,” an organization that has called Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio a hero for his actions against the Latino population, including racial profiling of suspected immigrants. Arpaio is currently under federal investigation for due process and human rights violations of detained immigrants, and for his appearance at the convention of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), an anti-immigrant group founded by an Anglo extremist that is listed as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. The October 22 airing of "Latinos in America" will not mention Dobbs or his support of the Minuteman Project.

Protest organizer press conference (PHOTO: Mission Local)

In conjunction with today's airing of "Latino in America," there were protests organized at CNN and CNN-linked locations in Manhattan and Atlanta, top Hispanic media markets. The organizers claim CNN cannot have it both ways - attempting to solicit diverse markets while providing Dobbs a “legitimizing” platform to espouse incorrect and immigrant-bashing information. The program will not mention Dobbs and similar “media” personalities that polarize the immigration debate. The host of the program, Soledad O’Brien, said yesterday “It’s only four hours, and we’re talking about 51 million people.”

Last week, Dobbs vehemently lashed out against those leading a campaign against him including Roberto Lovato, coordinator of Basta Dobbs (Enough Dobbs). The New York Times quoted Angelo Falcón, Executive Director of the National Institute for Latino Policy in New York as saying that “(Dobbs) doesn’t understand the widespread antipathy to him and his race-baiting that exists throughout the Latino community, on its left, right and middle.”

Lovato said that it is enough when Dobbs falsely “tells his viewers that one-third of the nation's prison population is illegal immigrants, that Mexico is our enemy, that the immigrant population has contributed to the spreading of highly contagious infectious diseases and endemics like leprosy.”

For more information, please see:

Mission Local - Dobbs Draws Fire as CNN Airs Doc About Latinos – 21 October 2009 

Scripps News - Delaisla: Hispanics support campaign against Lou Dobbs – 21 October 2009

New America Media - Coalition Launches National Campaign Against CNN’s Lou Dobbs – 17 October 2009