Human Rights

Do athletes have a moral duty to protest Chinese authoritarianism? How about Elon Musk?

Do athletes have a moral duty to protest Chinese authoritarianism? How about Elon Musk?

Do elite international athletes have a moral responsibility to publicly comment or act in a way that acknowledges their awareness of oppressive — or worse — political conditions in nations in which they compete?

Do societal moral standards require them to speak up, even when criticism and confrontation jeopardize their ability to compete and may threaten to derail an entire career?

The Beijing Winter Olympics — scheduled to begin in early February in and around China’s capital city — makes this a timely question.

Several democratic nations have announced “diplomatic” boycotts of the Beijing competition. They include the United States, Australia, Britain, Canada, Denmark, and Japan. (To be clear: democratic claims alone do not necessarily stifle a nation’s darker impulses and render it “moral.”)

That means that no political office holders from the the boycotting nations will attend these Games, but qualifying athletes are free to make their own choices about competing.

The following paragraphs from the above linked Washington Post article explain the limits on free speech China is demanding (with International Olympic Committee acquiescence).

The IOC has said athletes will be free to express themselves during the Games as long as they abide by IOC rules barring any demonstrations during sporting events or medal ceremonies.

Athletes could raise any number of issues, including allegations of cultural genocide against the Uyghurs in Xinjiang, the erasure of civil freedoms in Hong Kong, and the arrests of human rights lawyers, activists and outspoken Chinese citizens. [Note that the Post left Tibetan issues, a major international sticking point for the West, off this list.]

But Chinese authorities are extremely sensitive to criticism about the country’s human rights record, its role in the outbreak of the covid-19 pandemic, and even the country’s efforts during the Korean War.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Religion's impact on global migrant crisis: RNS concludes that it's Gordian Knot complicated

Religion's impact on global migrant crisis: RNS concludes that it's Gordian Knot complicated

Globalization has been a decidedly mixed bag.

On the plus side, it’s managed to knit diverse people together economically and, to a lesser degree, culturally. But it’s also further divided others along religious, political, race, and class lines.

It’s introduced us to a myriad of once exotic consumer products at relatively cheaper prices (cheaper for many Westerners, that is). Globalization has also brought us fresh ideas and life choices that — while I certainly don’t agree with every new view put forth — has enormously enriched my own life experience.

On the negative side — and this is huge — it’s allowed multi-national corporate boards (and shareholders) to escape the full weight of responsibility for the enormous environmental degradation their decisions have produced in exploited regions thousands of miles distant from their posh corporate headquarters.

Also, let’s not forget the foreign workers, including child laborers, exploited by unscrupulous employers trying to satisfy their Western customers insatiable demands for rock bottom prices.

For the United States and other Western nations, globalization’s complex outcomes has produced still another key Gordian Knot dilemma. I’m referring to the vast numbers of desperate human refugees heading, most often without proper documentation, to the United States, Europe, Australia — and even to neighboring countries that may be only relatively better off.

The latter group includes situations American news media rarely cover. They include Nicaraguans fleeing to Costa Rica and South Africa’s burgeoning refugee population comprised of hopeful immigrants from a variety of sub-Saharan African nations.

Is it any surprise to anyone with a working knowledge of Homo sapiens that we demand globalization’s creature comforts without us wanting to deal with those actual Homo sapiens that globalization has negatively impacted.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

America's secular and religious death-by-choice debate is perennial and always newsworthy

America's secular and religious death-by-choice debate is perennial and always newsworthy

By count of the Death with Dignity organization, which devised Oregon's pioneering 1997 law under which 1,905 lives have been ended as of January 22, 10 states plus the District of Columbia have legalized euthanasia and -- assignment editors note -- 14 more states are currently debating such proposals. Click here to check on the situation in each state.

To begin, writers dealing with this perennial and newly current issue should be aware of the verbal politics with what's variously known as "euthanasia" (from the Greek meaning "good death"), "the right to die," "death on demand," "assisted suicide," "physician-assisted suicide” or "mercy killing." The activists who use the “pro-choice” label dislike any blunt mention of "suicide" or "killing" and urge instead that we use "physician-assisted death," "aid in dying" or "death with dignity."

Coverage by some media outlets, to be blunt, replaces non-partisanship with cheerleading.

Britain's The Economist had this mid-November cover headline: "The welcome spread of the right to die." However, to its credit the news magazine's (paywalled) editorial and international survey did summarize problems and opposing arguments.

A November 16 New York Times roundup on U.S. action — “For Terminal Patients, the Barrier to Aid in Dying Can Be a State Line” — reported that in addition to states that may newly legislate death-by-choice, states that already permit it are weighing further liberalization such as ending in-state residency requirements, shortening or waiving waiting periods, dropping the mandate that only physicians handle cases, filing of one request rather than two or more and other steps to streamline the process.

Reporters can find non-religious arguments in favor from Death With Dignity, cited above. It also recommends procedures to avoid abuse of this right. On the con side, pleas and cautions can be obtained from various disability rights organizations (click here for information).

On that score, psychiatrist-turned-journalist Charles Krauthammer, a non-religious Jew, spent much of his adult life paralyzed from the waist down.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

While most media ignore religious persecution, Al Jazeera devotes space and time to it

While most media ignore religious persecution, Al Jazeera devotes space and time to it

I remember when Al Jazeera was looking to hire folks in Washington, D.C., about the time they launched Al Jazeera English in 2006.

Some journalists about town weren’t sure about applying there, even though the money was said to be good and its connections within the Arabic-speaking world were light years better than any other news operation.

It was, of course, the whiff of Arab nationalism and Islamism that scared a lot of folks off. (Then again, in 2018, it was officially banned from more than one-third of all Arabic-speaking countries, so sometimes those connections exact a high price.)

Anyway, that was then. In 2008, it launched a human-rights desk in its newsrooms and began doing stories where such rights were violated. Being that religious groups were often the first targeted, Al Jazeera got into some serious religion reporting — covering all kinds of issues, often with a striking effort to be balanced, fair and accurate.

Fast forward to 2021, where they just won first place in the Excellence in Television News Magazine Religion Reporting category for the Religion News Writers annual contest. I am not sure what specific story won them that award but in recent years, they’ve done some quality religion pieces. Now they’re at the point where folks are writing academic papers based on their religion coverage.

I am not going to go into their reporting on Islam, which is a whole other topic. This post concerns their human rights-religious minorities coverage. One of their latest examples details how Myanmar has become “a living hell” for Christians — a story very few secular media are covering. Let’s start here:

Last month, Myanmar soldiers gunned down Cung Biak Hum, a 31-year-old Baptist pastor, while he rushed to help put out a fire caused by military shelling. As his town of Thantlang in Myanmar’s northwestern Chin State went up in flames, soldiers sawed off the pastor’s finger and stole his wedding ring.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

That question again: What's happening to religious believers and others stuck in Afghanistan?

That question again: What's happening to religious believers and others stuck in Afghanistan?

This is a case in which I don’t want to say, “We told you so,” but -- well — we told you so.

If you dug into this recent podcast-post — “ 'What's next in Afghanistan?' Warning: this news topic involves religion” — you’d know that the GetReligion team has been worried about what will happen to elite news coverage of human rights issues and, specifically, religious freedom, in Afghanistan under this new Taliban regime. In fact, that podcast included many themes from an earlier GetReligion podcast-post with this headline: “When the Taliban cracks down, will all the victims be worthy of news coverage?”

It appears that there are two problems.

Reality No. 1: It’s hard to cover the hellish realities of life in the new-old Afghanistan without discussing the messy exit of U.S. diplomats and troops from that troubled nation. Thus, new coverage will please Republicans, who are infuriated about that issue, and anger the White House team of President Joe Biden, which wants to move on. New coverage allows Republicans to “pounce,” as the saying goes.

Reality No. 2: There are many valid stories inside Afghanistan right now, but some are more explosive than others in terms of fallout here in America. This is especially true when dealing with stories about Americans who are still trapped there. Then there are religious believers — including Christians and members of minority groups inside Islam — who face persecution and even executions because of their beliefs. It appears that some journalism executives (and foreign-policy pros) continue to struggle with the reality that religious issues are at the heart of the Afghanistan conflict.

Thus, cases of political and religious persecution in Afghanistan are “conservative news.” For a quick overview, see this National Review piece: “In Afghanistan, ‘Almost Everyone Is in Danger Now.’ “ Note this snarky line:

The sort of headline that shouldn’t just be local news. … Those knee-jerk Biden critics over at . . . er, the Connecticut affiliate of NBC News report: “43 Connecticut Residents Still Stuck In Afghanistan.

Here is a key chunk of that NBCConnecticut.com report:


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Berlin 1936. Beijing 2022. Must China's Uighurs play the role Jews did in Hitler Olympics?

Berlin 1936. Beijing 2022. Must China's Uighurs play the role Jews did in Hitler Olympics?

It should be evident to all paying attention that the 2022 Beijing Winter Olympics will proceed as planned. Forget the meager protests against China’s cruel and immoral treatment of its own. The bad guys appear to be on the verge of another power-play victory.

Never mind the plight of China’s Uighur Muslims, underground Christian churches, Tibetan Buddhists and all the other groups the Beijing government labels a political threat. They’re of no lasting concern to the international elite who are quick to issue public condemnations, but oh so slow when it comes to follow up.

China’s political power — a byproduct of its enormous economic strength — is just too much to counter. And Beijing’s despotic leaders darn well know it.

This recent Associated Press article — “Beijing Olympics open in 4 months; human rights talk absent” — underscores the point. These opening graphs summarize the story quite well. They're also a reminder of the efficacy of traditional wire journalism’s inverted pyramid style. This piece of the story is long, but essential:

When the International Olympic Committee awarded Beijing the 2008 Summer Olympics, it promised the Games could improve human rights and civil liberties in China.

There is no such lofty talk this time with Beijing’s 2022 Winter Olympics — the first city to host both the Summer and Winter Games — opening in just four months on Feb. 4.

Instead, there are some calls for governments to boycott the Games with 3,000 athletes, sponsors and broadcasters being lobbied by rights groups representing minorities across China.

IOC President Thomas Bach has repeatedly dodged questions about the propriety of holding the Games in China despite evidence of alleged genocide, vast surveillance, and crimes against humanity involving at least 1 million Uyghurs and other largely Muslim minorities. Tibet, a flashpoint in the run up to 2008, remains one still.

“The big difference between the two Beijing Games is that in 2008 Beijing tried to please the world,” Xu Guoqi, a historian at the University of Hong Kong, said in an email to The Associated Press. “In 2022, it does not really care about what the rest of the world thinks about it.”


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Bonus podcast: 'What's next in Afghanistan?' Warning: this news topic involves religion

Bonus podcast: 'What's next in Afghanistan?' Warning: this news topic involves religion

Here is a truth claim that, over the years, I have heard (or seen) stated in a number of ways by journalists and mass-media professors: Without strong, or at least adequate, visual images a story doesn’t exist in television news.

Yes, there are exceptions. But the exceptions almost always take place when big stories break in print media and television producers are highly committed to getting them on air — somehow.

Now, in the smartphone era, there are lots of ways for visual images to emerge (ask Hunter Biden). However, in our era of partisan, niche news, it may not matter if images exist. What citizens cannot see (or read) will not hurt them?

This brings me back to a subject I addressed in this recent GetReligion essay: “What's next in Afghanistan? Press will have to face issues of religion, culture and gender.”

The big question: Where does the Afghanistan story go next and, frankly, will elite American media cover the religion elements of this story?

That question was at the heart of a recent Religion Unplugged podcast discussion that I had with a friend and, long ago, a former religion-beat colleague — Roberta Green. In recent decades, she is better known as the philanthropist and fine arts-maven Roberta Green Ahmanson (click here for a typical arts lecture).

This new podcast is entitled, “How Will Afghanistan's Next Chapter be Written?” Click here to head over to iTunes to tune that in. Meanwhile, here is a key chunk of the GetReligion essay linked to our discussion about religion, journalism, culture, politics and “nation building”:

Viewed through the narrow lens of Taliban doctrine, it doesn’t matter if Western governments were forcing open doors for the work of Planned Parenthood or Christian missionary/relief groups, the work of LGBTQ think tanks (or the American corporations that back them) or Islamic thinkers and clerics whose approach to the faith clashed with their own.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

What's next in Afghanistan? Press will have to face issues of religion, culture and gender

What's next in Afghanistan? Press will have to face issues of religion, culture and gender

The headline on the National Catholic Register story is simple and timely: “Trapped by the Taliban, Praying for Escape from Afghanistan.

The reporting is simple, as well, as long as the journalists involved have established contacts with people inside Kabul who have smartphones and there are functioning cell towers and satellites. The story is built on people describing what they claim is going on around them, especially events affecting their families and friends.

These people are U.S. citizens, Afghans with U.S. “green cards” and others who cooperated with Western governments and agencies, including religious groups, during the 20 years of “nation building” in the war-torn land of Afghanistan.

The question is whether the contents of this story remain newsworthy, since Afghanistan has, for now, moved off the front burner in elite newsrooms. What happened? Clearly, Republicans and centrist Democrats had “pounced” on the topic while blasting President Joe Biden and his White House team.

But is this NCR piece news? Yes, it is. Also, this is a story journalists can study while looking for clues about realities, and news, at ground level in the Taliban’s new-old Afghanistan. Here is the overture:

For two decades, Sher Shah had worked alongside U.S. and Afghans to build a democratic country free from the Taliban and war. He had established a new life with his family in the U.S. with the help of Catholic Charities and a Catholic sponsor family, but briefly returned to Afghanistan this summer to attend his father’s funeral.

Now, he’s a man trying to escape the Taliban and get back home to the U.S.

More? Here is a claim — let me stress this is a CLAIM — coming from this source. But the Register report has other anonymous voices making similar statements in what appear to be telephone interviews or contacts via email.

U.S. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken has stated approximately 100 U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents remain in Afghanistan. …

But Sher Shah said he has heard nothing from the State Department since Aug. 26 — and he made use of the State Department’s information posted on its website for U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents stuck in Afghanistan.

“There are thousands of Americans still in Afghanistan,” he said. “And I’m one of them.”

The reality that emerges, in this stories and others, is that the United States and other Western forces were not engaged in 20 years of “nation building,” as in building an Afghanistan government that looked to the nation’s past — its monarchy, for example. It would be more accurate to say the goal was building a new culture, one that incorporated elements of modernity and even postmodernity in America and Europe.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

What does the New York Times mean when it reports on 'religious leaders' in Afghanistan?

What does the New York Times mean when it reports on 'religious leaders' in Afghanistan?

Anyone who has read GetReligion for more than a month probably knows that I have always been concerned about the lack of press coverage of endangered religious minorities in large parts of the world — including nations such as Afghanistan.

It’s crucial to remember, when talking about religious freedom issues and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, that it is tragically common for members of a major world religion to punish other members of their own faith because of strong disagreements about doctrine and tradition. It is common to see persecution of those who have no faith — think atheists and agnostics — as well as those who have converted to a new faith.

As a reminder, here is Article 18 of that landmark United Nations document:

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

With all of that in mind, it’s easy to understand why I was interested in this headline atop a New York Times report: “The Taliban holds first meeting of religious leaders since taking Kabul.

The key, of course, is the meaning of these two words — “religious leaders.”

If you follow news updates, you know that the ancient Jewish community in Afghanistan is long gone — unless merchant Zablon Simintov chose to attend this meeting. Was there a Catholic representative at the meeting? Were leaders of the growing underground church invited? Did they dare to come out of hiding? What about the Muslim leaders of progressive (for lack of a better word) mosques who cooperated with Western leaders during the past 20 years?

Who were these “religious leaders”?


Please respect our Commenting Policy