Viennese Journal 17.0: Children in-Justice: a Human Rights perspective on the School to Prison Pipeline

The last couple of days are a blur because I am possessed by the anger about the injustice of children being put in custody and children being denied their parents by incarceration. I have attended events and worshops on children in solitary confinement, children in conflict with the laws, and children of incarcerated parents. I am heartened by the hope that so many people around the world and the United Nations are working on advancing the human rights

(*Taken from Juvenile In Justice: http://www.juvenile-in-justice.com/ )

The Problem: The School to Prison Pipeline

The “school-to-prison pipeline” refers to the policies and practices that push schoolchildren, especially our most at-risk children, out of classrooms and into the juvenile and criminal justice systems. 

 

The story of the school to prison pipeline begins with failing schools. With overcrowded classrooms, unqualified teachers, insufficient funding for special education, mental health, or up to date textbooks, schools do not meet the needs of the students in poor and vulnerable communities. testing aaccountability programs like "No Child Left Behind" create incentives for strugglging schools to force out struggling children in order to improve their numbers and secure much needed funding. As a result children are forced out or drop out.

 

 

"Zero Tolerance Policies" in schools impose severe punishment regardless of the circumstances and fail to give children a second chance at redeeming themselves. Under these policies children have been expelled for bringing nail clippers or scissors to school. Rates of suspension and expulsion have risen dramatically in the last years from 1.7 million in 1974 to 3.1 million in 2000. Children of color and children with mental disabilities are most dramatically affected by these policies.

 

 

As harsh penalties for minor misbehavior become more pervasive, schools increasingly ignore or bypass due process protections for suspensions and expulsions.

 

Many schools become a pipeline gateway by putting police in charge of resolving conflicts in schools instead of school administrators. Police officers patrol school hallways, with little or no training about the special developmental processes of kids, and the skills necessary to work with youth. As a result children are far more likely to be arrested or cited to court at school and funneled into the Court system for disruptive behavior, rather than working out the problems in school without the legal system. The rise in school based arrestes is the quickest way from the classroom to jail, and exemplifies the criminalization of children.

In North Carolina the age of adulthood for criminal responsibility is the age of 16. This means children ages 16, 17, 18 are charged as adults, incarcerated with adults, and stigmatized as criminals for life.

Youth who become involved in the juvenile justice system are often denied procedural protections in the courts; in one state, up to 80% of court-involved children do not have lawyers.

Students who commit minor offenses may end up in secured detention if they violate probation conditions prohibiting them from missing school or disobeying teachers

Children of Color and children with mental health disabilities are disproportionately suspended, expelled or arrested for the same conduct as white students.

There are 1.7 Million cases of youth charged with delinquency offense each year in the United States, that is 4,600 per day.

On any given day approximately 70,000 young people are in facilities each . (See ACLU National, http://www.aclu.org/racial-justice/school-prison-pipeline)

In North Carolina there are 216 suspensions for every 1,000 students enrolled.  In some North Carolina counties, the suspension rate is as high as 600 per 1,000 students. During 2005, more than 3,300 pre-kindergarten and kindergarten students were suspended.

Why is the suspension rate in North Carolina 56% higher than the national average? A high school dropout is almost 9 times more likely than a high school graduate to end up in jail or prison.

There is an amazing group called Hidden Voices in Durham, North Carolina collecting stories about the school to prison pipeline and putting them together in art exhibits and performances pieces to bring attention to this horrific and hidden problem.  (http://hiddenvoices.org/pod/project/12 )

Here is a short documentary sponsored in part by the North Carolina Central Law School about kids in custody, and solitary confinement:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQu03atqxP8

Human Rights Framework for Children in Conflict with the Law*

(*Taken from a publication of ACLU and Human Rights Watch, Growing up Locked Down (http://www.aclu.org/criminal-law-reform/growing-locked-down-youth-solitary-confinement-jails-and-prisons-across-united ))

In November 1959, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Declaration on the Rights of the Child, which recognized that “the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth.” (http://www.un.org/cyberschoolbus/humanrights/resources/child.asp )  The United States was one of the 78 members of the UN General Assembly that voted unanimously to adopt the declaration. While the declaration is not binding law, since that time, the world’s governments, including the United States, have further elaborated, in treaties and other declarations, the rights of children accused of crimes.

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which the United States became a party in 1992, specifically acknowledges the need for special treatment of children in the criminal justice system and emphasizes the importance of their rehabilitation. (http://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%20999/volume-999-I-14668-English.pdf ) Article 10 requires the separation of child offenders from adults and the provision of treatment appropriate to their age and legal status. Article 14(4), which was co-sponsored by the United States, requires that criminal procedures for children charged with crimes “take account of the age and the desirability of promoting their rehabilitation.”  The ICCPR emphasizes age-differentiated, positive measures for child offenders and education, rehabilitation, and reintegration over punishment.

Both the ICCPR and the Convention against Torture and Other, Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT) prohibit “cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”(CAT, http://untreaty.un.org/cod/avl/pdf/ha/catcidtp/catcidtp_e.pdf )  In addition, article 10 of the ICCPR stipulates, “All persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person.”  For treatment to be humane, it must be appropriate to age and legal status. The vulnerability and immaturity of juvenile offenders renders a wider range of treatment potentially cruel, inhuman, or degrading, and such treatment, in turn, can have a much more profound effect on the body and mind of a developing child than on an adult. It is precisely because imprisonment is such an inherently severe sanction that governmental decisions to impose it are subject to human rights constraints. The ICCPR recognizes that all persons (including young people) deprived of their liberty shall be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person.  

When the United States ratified the ICCPR, it attached a limiting reservation providing that the policy and practice of the United States are generally in compliance with and supportive of the Covenant’s provisions regarding treatment of juveniles in the criminal justice system. Nevertheless, the United States reserves the right, in exceptional circumstances, to treat juveniles as adults, notwithstanding paragraphs 2 (b) and 3 of article 10 and paragraph 4 of article 14. The drafting history of this reservation indicates that it should be interpreted narrowly. The reservation was intended to permit—on an “exceptional” basis—the trial of children as adults and the incarceration of children and adults in the same prison facilities. The United States, as a co-sponsor of Article 14, was keenly aware of the breadth and scope of its language. There is nothing in its reservation to suggest that the United States sought to reserve the right to treat children as harshly as adults on a regular or frequent basis, or to disregard the special needs and vulnerabilities of children. To the extent the reservation is interpreted broadly, it risks creating a loophole for violations of children’s basic rights. To be fully consistent with what it has agreed to elsewhere regarding children’s rights, the United States should withdraw the reservation, and refuse to use it to justify actions that otherwise would violate the ICCPR.

 The Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), which the United States has signed but not yet ratified, explicitly addresses the particular rights and needs of children. (http://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/crc.aspx ) Underpinning several of the treaty’s provisions is the fundamental recognition of the child’s potential for rehabilitation. The CRC requires that a state’s decision to incarcerate a child “shall be used only as a measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time.” A child who has committed a crime is to be treated in a manner that takes into account “the child’s age and the desirability of promoting the child’s reintegration and the child’s assuming a constructive role in society.” States are to use a variety of measures to address the situation of children in conflict with the law, including “care, guidance and supervision orders; counseling; probation; foster care; education and vocational training programmes and other alternatives to institutional care.” The treaty also anticipates the need for regular and accessible procedures in which a child can “challenge the legality of the deprivation of his or her liberty.”

International human rights law also affirms the right of family unity. The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (which the US has signed, but not yet ratified) guarantees all persons a right to education and to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health. (http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CESCR.aspx ) It guarantees all persons a right to education and to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health.

The Convention of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), also states that young people with disabilities, including mental disabilities (long-term mental health problems) or intellectual disabilities (sometimes called developmental disabilities), retain the right  to full enjoyment “of all human rights and fundamental freedoms, on an equal basis with other [youth],” including when deprived of their liberty. (http://www.un.org/disabilities/convention/conventionfull.shtml )

Various international standards provide additional detail regarding precisely how governments should ensure that this range of rights be safeguarded in practice With regard to  solitary confinement, the United Nations Guidelines for the Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency (Riyadh Guidelines) describe punitive solitary confinement of young People under age 18 as cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. (http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/45/a45r112.htm )

The Committee on the Rights of the Child, which interprets the CRC, has also suggested that the punitive solitary confinement of young people under age 18 is cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. (http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/crc/ )

The United Nations Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty reiterates this conclusion. (http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/45/a45r113.htm )

Most recently, the special rapporteur on torture, in his report to the General Assembly, called for an absolute ban on solitary confinement for young people under age 18:  The Special Rapporteur holds the view that the imposition of solitary confinement, of any duration, on juveniles is cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and violates article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and article 16 of the Convention against Torture. This proposed absolute ban reflects an agreement that solitary confinement is an affront to the humanity and vulnerability of any child. The special rapporteur also called for an absolute ban on solitary confinement of those with mental disabilities because the adverse effects are especially significant for persons with serious mental health problems. Young people under age 18 with mental disabilities are therefore doubly vulnerable, given both their age and developmental needs and their disability. With regard to the other deprivations experienced by young people in solitary confinement, international standards similarly provide additional detail.  (http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/SRTorture/A-HRC-19-61.pdf )

The United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice (the Beijing Rules), among other international standards, provide that while in custody, adolescents “shall receive care, protection and all necessary individual assistance,” which must extend to psychological, medical, and physical care and be differentiated by age and gender-specific needs. (http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/SRTorture/A-HRC-19-61.pdf )

 These standards emphasize education, family contact, and access to developmentally-appropriate programming aimed at supporting growth and at reintegrating young people into society. Domestic professional standards suggest that adult facilities should not house young people under age 18.

Children of Incarcerated Parents*

Finally, I attended a presentation by our group Quaker United Nations Office (QUNO) on the issue of children of incarcerated parents.

(*Taken From Collateral Convicts: Children of Incarcerated Parents, http://www.quno.org/geneva/pdf/humanrights/women-in-prison/201203Analytical-DGD-Report-internet.pdf )

Children of incarcerated parents, like children in general, are all individuals. Each will have a differentv experience of and response to parental imprisonment, and the unique situation of each child should be considered in all interactions with them and decisions that affect them. But regardless of individual circumstances, each child also has rights, including the right not to be discriminated against based on the status or activities of their parents (Convention on the Rights of the Child Article 2(2)), to the opportunity to be heard in any judicial and administrative proceedings affecting them (Article 12(2)) and the right to have their best interests be a primary consideration in all actions concerning them (Convention on the Rights of the Child Article 3(1)). Unfortunately, children of incarcerated parents are too easily ignored in the criminal justice system, which deals with identifying and responding to individual guilt or innocence. Children interacting with the criminal justice system (for example when visiting incarcerated parents) are ‘reduced to a security risk assessment, [while] within the broader community they are silent and silenced’.2 Only rarely do ministries responsible for children see them as a group of children exposed to particular challenges, meaning children of incarcerated parents often fall into the gaps between government agencies. Children of incarcerated parents exist in developing and developed countries all around the world, with certain experiences and features common to many such children. For many, the removal and detention of a parent is a negative experience, with implications for their future wellbeing. The risks associated with parental incarceration have been categorised into five main areas:

1. Risk of deprivation of basic necessities and opportunities

2. Risk of danger of secondary victimisation and depersonalisation

3. Risk of deterioration of overall situation of a child

4. Risk of distance from incarcerated parent

5. Risk of descent into antisocial behaviour

More specifically, children may experience impacts including: physical and mental health impacts related to separation and other aspects of parental incarceration; a risk of relationship breakdown; the possibility of having to move house or be taken into care; financial difficulties; problems at school (educational and behavioural); increased vulnerability to neglect, abuse and victimisation; and difficulties in visiting incarcerated parents. ‘Finally it increases the risk of a child’s own prospects, as they fear or distrust authority, fail to receive the help they need, live in impoverished and unstable circumstances, and begin to accept prison as “normal” – or as the only place they can be with their mum or dad.’ Some of these problems will depend on factors such as the nature of the offence and sentence, the age and maturity of the child or which parent is imprisoned (children with incarcerated fathers are more likely to have another parent care for them than is the case when mothers are imprisoned). But as a group, children of incarcerated parents have faced all the issues detailed above and more, and would benefit from considered and timely interventions. 

There are many examples of good practice from around the world, often small and inexpensive changes that make a major difference to the lives of children. Many are detailed below. Unforunately, these steps too often depend on the interest and involvement of individual prison staff or charities/non-governmental organisations (NGOs), rather than institutionalised good policy and practice.

Conclusion: When a Child is Incarcerated, the Community has failed

I came away from these sessions possessed by the idea that we can free some of these children and offer them a better, more healthy life.

When a child is incarcerated, the community has failed. Whether the failure is at school, at home, at work, at the doctor's office, at the police station, it is hard to say in any particular case with careful listening and understanding. We owe it to our children to take better care of them.

Viennese Journal 16.0: Our Statement on Environmental Crime from a Human Rights Perspective

At the end of the day on Tuesday, April 23, 2013 I had the honor of reading a statement we prepared on Environmental Crime from a Human Rights Perspective.

This is the statement:

Dear Mr. Chair

The Friends World Committee for Consultation (Quakers) has a concern for the health of the environment, and the impact of environmental crime on our fragile systems of life.

We are particularly concerned with the way environmental crimes disproportionately harm minorities, vulnerable communities, and indigenous peoples and jeopardize basic human rights.  Even when their voice is necessary to reach a just resolution of environmental crimes, vulnerable groups are likely to be excluded from justice processes and their rights and needs are not recognised.

We note that Article 29 of the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples sets out the right to the protection of their environment without discrimination, and protection against the disposal of hazardous wastes without their free, prior and informed consent.

We believe restorative justice and reconciliation practices provide mechanisms for States to address these kinds of crimes. Restorative justice practices offer a participatory process that gives voice to vulnerable communities, and identifies and repairs the harm of environmental crime. States should employ restorative justice practices to set policy, enforce environmental laws, and shape responses to violations of environmental law.

As Quakers we believe that humankind must preserve the ecological integrity and the sacredness of the natural world. People must choose activities, create institutions, and establish policies and laws that respect all people and the planet we share.

 

The statement went through multiple draft stages and input and approval was received from a variety of prominent Quaker organizations around the world.  

In preparation for this moment, I learned a little about the history of the environmental justice movement and Quaker perspectives on environmental advocacy.

The term "environmental racism" can be traced to opposition to the placement of a PCB landfill in the poor and predominantly African American county of Warren, North Carolina in 1978. The Research Triangle Park was generating this toxic waste and needed to dispose of them. Warren County was identified as the site. Attorney Travis Payne and his firm challenged selection of the site as a civil rights violation, and the NAACP organized protests. When the first truckloads of contaminated soil arrived, demonstrators lay down in the road and there were over 500 arrests. Continued advocacy led to detoxification of landfill which was completed in 2003. The discriminatory placement of waste in poor and minority communities violates human rights and requires special attention.

I remembered that about ten years ago the youth in my Quaker Meeting (Durham Friends Meeting) wrote an alternative Query on the Environment for our consideration.  As Quakers we do not have creeds, doctrines, or required beliefs.  We do have a set of Queries or “Questions” we consider collectively and individually at least once a month at our Meeting for Worship with Attention to Business.

One of our traditional Queries is “Do we endeavor to live in harmony with nature?  Are we careful in our stewardship of the world's irreplaceable resources?”

In 2002, the Youth in our Meeting revised the query as follows, “Do we sincerely seek to understand our place in the universe and our purpose here on earth?  Are we willing to make sacrifices and to ask others to join us in changing the things we use and the way we use them in order to preserve life everywhere?  Are we willing to persist gently in persuading others, not giving up, but being receptive to other's needs as we strive to establish lifestyles dedicated to the preservation of all life?  Are we open to the strength, the purpose, the joy, the desire within and beyond ourselves as a resource in truly living in and genuinely loving the world?”

My own yearly Meeting, the North Carolina Yearly Meeting (Conservative), his published a journal on "Caring for Creation" with articles on  our spiritual relation to the enviornmental crisis. (http://www.ncymc.org/journal/ncymcjournal5.pdf ). EarthCare and the Great Commandments, By Lloyd Lee Wilson; Listening to the Earth, by Nan Bowles, and Reverence for God's Creation, by Charles Ansell. Lloyd Lee wrote in his article on EarthCare that

We humans can no longer act as if the rest of creation were a commodity: a pool of natural resources through which we can move once, use as we wish, and dispose of with abandon. The tragic consequences of this type of behavior are becoming all too clear to even the most skeptical of observers. Christians are given a radically different model and precept for living in and with creation, valuing creation as God’s beloved work, not as a potentially useful commodity. Christ has shown us the way to live out this new understanding: the servant. By thinking and acting as the Christian servant of all of creation, we carry out our role of being Christ’s hands and feet in this world, and do our part to restore and sustain the gospel order which has always been God’s intention for everything.

Other Quaker organizations have made important statements about the environment.  The Friends Committee on National Legislation (FCNL) has statement on the environment which is currently under consideration for revision and updating.

FCNL Statement on Earth Care:

The health of the earth's ecosystems and their ability to support life has been and is being seriously impaired by human activities. We deplore the pollution of the earth's land, water, and atmosphere; the decline in biodiversity and nonrenewable resources; and the increase in deforestation and desertification. The world is in the midst of a mass extinction of species, primarily human in cause.

We urge that national legislation promote ecologically sound and safe agricultural, extractive, industrial, and commercial enterprises. Ways must be found to meet the needs of human beings without doing violence to the rest of creation. Specifically we advocate that the U.S. government develop policies that encourage regional and international cooperation for solutions to environmental problems, including environmental standards in trade agreements that assure nations and local governments of their right to establish more stringent environmental protections and standards. (for more … (http://fcnl.org/about/govern/policy/earth_restored/ )

Quaker Earthcare witness (QEW)

Quaker Earthcare Witness (QEW) is a network of the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) in North America and other like-minded people who are taking spirit-led action to address ecological and social crises from a spiritual perspective, emphasizing Quaker process and testimonies, including continuing revelation. The work of QEW includes:

·        Engaging and Connecting stems from a desire to create larger community in this action

·        Deepening Spirituality stems from a conviction and consciousness that the global crisis of ecological sustainability is at root a spiritual crisis.

·        Living our Testimonies stems from the need to change what we do and how we do it to get in right relationship with Earth.

·        Speaking Out to local, national and international audiences that Creation is to be held in reverence in its own right, and that human aspirations for peace and justice depend upon restoring Earth's ecological integrity.

Here is a statement from QEW regarding its vision:

WE ARE CALLED to live in right relationship with all Creation, recognizing that the entire world is interconnected and is a manifestation of God.

WE WORK to integrate into the beliefs and practices of the Religious Society of Friends the Truth that God's Creation is to be respected, protected, and held in reverence in its own right, and the Truth that human aspirations for peace and justice depend upon restoring the earth's ecological integrity.

WE PROMOTE these Truths by being patterns and examples, by communicating our message, and by providing spiritual and material support to those engaged in the compelling task of transforming our relationship to the earth.

For more information on QEW see (http://www.quakerearthcare.org/ )

The British Yearly Meeting has issued an important Minute 36 on sustainability and the Environment as follows:

“Sustainability is an urgent matter for our Quaker witness. It is rooted in Quaker testimony and must be integral to all we do corporately and individually.”

(A framework for action 2009-2014)

A concern for the Earth and the well-being of all who dwell in it is not new, and we have not now received new information which calls us to act. Rather we are renewing our commitment to a sense of the unity of creation which has always been part of Friends’ testimonies. Our actions have as yet been insufficient.

John Woolman’s words in 1772 sound as clearly to us now:

“The produce of the earth is a gift from our gracious creator to the inhabitants, and to impoverish the earth now to support outward greatness appears to be an injury to the succeeding age.” … see more (http://www.quaker.org.uk/minute-36)

With these values in mind, I learned about the framework of “Environmental Crime.”

There were multiple presentations on environmental crime and reports issued. One report, Emerging Crimes that have an Effect on the Environment: Scope, Trends and Links to Corruption and Organized Crime included some important analytical frameworks for discussion. (http://www.unodc.org/documents/commissions/CCPCJ_session22/PNI/2013_04_21_PNI_workshop_HEUNI.pdf )

In this report, environmental crime was defined as “violation of laws that are put into place to protect the environment. In the broad sense, environmental crime is understood to include all illegal acts that directly cause environmental harm.”  

The conceptual framework identifies five specific types of environmental crimes:

·        the dumping of industrial wastes into water bodies, and illicit trade in hazardous waste (examples: waste oils, nuclear waste, e-waste);

·        unreported, unregulated, and illegal fishing (examples: illegal whaling, illegal use of driftnets, fishing beyond quota);

·        the buying and selling of endangered species (examples: ivory, rhino horn, tiger bones, sturgeon eggs – basically many commodities with a high value, but with a low bulk, thus making smuggling relatively easy and highly profitable);

·        smuggling of ozone-depleting substances (related substances include chemicals, pesticides and persistent organic pollutants); and

·        illegal logging and trade in stolen timber.”

This paper identifies reasons why environment crimes remain unreported and un-measurable. It is a paradox that the most visible part of our world, ‘the environment’ can be “invisible.”

a)                 countries differ in the extent to which deliberate or negligent conduct harming the environment is illegal. Conduct that endangers the environment may be covered by criminal law, administrative law or civil law. What is met in one jurisdiction by penal sanctions may be met in another by administrative measures, and in a third by civil penalties;

b)                many environmental crimes remain undetected. For example, it is often difficult to distinguish between legal and illegal fishing, and the activity itself may take place far away from watching eyes;

c)                  lack of detection may also be due to the fact that the harm caused to the environment may be gradual (as with the slow despoliation of a river) or minute (as with the disappearance of individual parrots from the wild);

d)                the impact may be seen only far from the source (as is often the case with the dumping of industrial wastes), possibly across international borders, and it may be difficult to identify the source;

e)                 in the case of the dumping of industrial wastes, the definition of illegal conduct may depend on measurement, which in turn is prone to error (especially if the industry itself is responsible for self-monitoring and/or for record-keeping);

f)                  much environmental crime affects remote areas of developing countries (illegal logging, poaching of wildlife, dumping of hazardous waste), that are relatively unpopulated and where people may not be used to thinking in legal categories, and thus would not report the conduct;

g)                  even if the conduct is identified as illegal, people may be unaware of to whom the activity can be reported;

h)                the conduct may not be identified as illegal, but seen by the local population as a “necessary evil”, as a cost of employment and industrialization; and

i)                   many in the local population may be aware that the conduct is illegal, but they themselves benefit from it (as is often the case in respect of illegal fishing, illegal logging, and the buying and selling of endangered species).

Sometimes discussions about environment focus on the non-human living beings out of the context of human rights. Other times, we discuss human policies without considering the inter-relationship with the environment. What we must realize is that all of our human political, economic, and social activities are embedded in the fragile living system of life on our planet.  To survive we must begin to always think in terms of how these systems interrelate, and each decision must be understood in a holisitic way.

One part of this re-visualization of human and environment interconnectedness is to understand how environmental decisions impact human rights.

In March of 2013 the United Nations Independent Expert on human rights and environment, John Knox, highlighted the urgent need to clarify the human rights obligations linked to the enjoyment of a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment. Such clarification, he said, “is necessary in order for States and others to better understand what those obligations require and ensure that they are fully met, at every level from the local to the global.”

“Human rights and the environment are not only interrelated, they are also interdependent,” Mr. Knox noted during the presentation of his preliminary report* to the Human Rights Council. “A healthy environment is fundamentally important to the enjoyment of human rights, and the exercise of human rights is necessary for a healthy environment.”

“All human rights are vulnerable to environmental degradation, in that the full enjoyment of all human rights depends on a supportive environment,” underscored the Independent Expert.

The Quaker UN office (QUNO), issued a letter to Mr. Knox welcoming his report. QUNO welcomed the portions of the report mentioning the impact of environmental crimes on vulnerable indigenous peoples. QUNO asked (1) “Do you have any plans to consider the role that peacebuilding approaches can play in realizing procedural rights and therefore in helping to achieve both substantive rights and effective environmental policy? And, (2) have you considered looking at how groups such as small farmers, rural communities and marginalised sections of society, can effectively participate in consultation and decision-making processes that relate to their environment?”

These discussions led me to reflect on our environmental crisis and our legal system in ways that I have not before. It made me think of one of my favorite Quakers, John Woolman.  In the 18^th Century, John Woolman worked for the abolition of slavery, and to have just and fair relationships with Native Americans. He viewed the world as a sacred space connected by relationships among human and non-human beings. He understood that a “right relationship” with nature, animals, work, rest, play, prayer, and other human beings was essential to a life in harmony with creation. Exploring this concept of “Right Relationship” more deeply, Peter Brown and Geoffrey Garver say “Right relationship provides a guiding ethic for people wishing to lead fulfilling lives as creative and integrated participants in a human society and the commonwealth of life as a whole. It is akin to what some would call "sustainability" though it goes much deeper. Right relationship offers a guidance system for functioning in harmony with scientific reality and enduring ethical traditions.” (Right Relationship: Building a Whole Earth Economy, by Peter G. Brown and Geoffrey Garver)

Striving to live in a right relationship with other people and our environment is challenging in a world that is so focused on short term, disconnected, self gratification. However, it is only in living in this relationship that we are free to be our true selves and experience to deepest love of God.

The idea of an “Environmental Crime” includes a fundamental disturbance to the right relationship with our shared planet.  It is a violation of that which gives and sustains life. It violates both human beings and non-human beings, and jeopardizes our continued existence. If we do not change our lifestyles radically and a collective way, we will experience a devastating punishment.

The idea of “Environmental Crime” also expands the legal framework to include non-human “victims.” It creates the problem of a multi-national jurisdictional problem. It bends our boxes and classifications which place human beings and nations at the center of the Universe. The very idea is constitutes a Copernican revolution, radically challenging our notions of national sovereignty and human primacy. Our only path to survival will require adaptation to this global reality that we are dependent upon our surroundings and we are connected to each other as a planet.  National boundaries will have to relax, people will have to take responsibility for each other and their environment. The alternative is extinction.

The discussions in the Plenary sessions on environmental crime mostly consisted of each state agreeing that it is a serious problem, and then summarizing all of their environmental laws addressing the problem. Both the problem, and its solutions were stuck in a box that will not lead to a right relationship.  But, the discussion itself is a radical and liberating act in that these people from all these countries at least understand that we need to be having global conversations over this global problem.

I nearly fell out of my chair when I heard the Chariman from South Africa say, “The Chair will now recognize the State of Palestine.”  Wow. I thought the earth might stop. But no one batted an eye, and we all understand that we can change.

After I read our statement to the plenary session, I rushed across town on the subway to the Musikverein to hear the Vienna Symphony play Holleger and Bruckner. The Musikverein is one of the best music halls in the world, acoustically speaking – even though it was built before high-tech acoustical measurements.

The Holleger was very modern and impressionistic. It was like he was writing a movie score to a movie that could never live up to his idea.  The Bruckner included a large chorale and four vocal soloists.  I felt chills every time the chorus sang together quietly – it was like a smoldering fire about to erupt into flame at any moment.

 

We joined our friend Oliver who is on the Quaker team for ice cream after, and made it home just before midnight. It was quite a day.

Viennese Journal 15.0: Introduction to the Crime Commission and Summary of the Day

April 22, 2013

Introduction to the United Nations Commission for Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice (“Crime Commission”)

Approaching the entrance to the United Nations building in Vienna is awe inspiring. With the world flags circling the entrance, and the great fountain, I felt great respect, admiration, and hope for the people of the world who gather together to participate in this process of global governance and information sharing.  

This is the second year that I have attended the United Nations Commission for Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice.  Last year was a grand adventure to Vienna. Before then, I have never really traveled very much. It was my first time in Europe, and my first time on a subway. (I wrote about these adventures on a blog post called “Viennese Journal 1.0 through 11.0.” )

Once again, I have arrived in Vienna to attend the Crime Commission and I hope to find the time to report to you some of the important issues considered by people attending this international gathering.

What is the United Nations Commission for Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice?

             The United Nations was founded in 1945 as a deliberative world body to allow nations of the world to meet and discuss important issues affecting the world. Composed of 193 countries, the United Nations was organized to maintain international peace and security, develop friendly relationship among countries, promote social progress, and increase basic human rights and living standards around the world.

 Within the United States are several organizations/bodies which work together for the common good of the world.

These include the General Assembly, the Security Council, the Secretariat, the International Court of Justice, the Trustee Council, and the Economic and Social Council. These bodies are composed of member states that send delegates to fulfill the various roles within the United Nations.

 

The Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), established by the UN Charter, is the coordinates the economic, social and related work of the United Nations and the specialized agencies and institutions.  Voting in the Council is by simple majority; each member has one vote.  Some of the work of ECOSOC is conducted through Commissions were delegates from around the world meet to discuss best practices, and set international norms in governance by passing of resolutions. The standing functional commissions of ECOSOC are:

·        Statistical Commission

·        Commission on Population and Development

·        Commission for Social Development

·        Commission on the Status of Women

·        Commission on Narcotic Drugs

·        Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice

·        Commission on Science and Technology for Development

·        Commission on Sustainable Development

·        United Nations Forum on Forests

The Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice (“Crime Commission”) meets in the United Nations building in Vienna, each year in April. (http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/commissions/CCPCJ/session/22.html ) . Commission guides the activities of the United Nations in the field of crime prevention and criminal justice. It also reviews United Nations standards and norms in this area, including their use and application by Member States. It takes action through resolutions and decisions.

Every five years there is a “Crime Congress” in some part of the world, where the work of the Commission culminates in important actions and work of the Commission in intervening years. The United Nations congresses on crime prevention and criminal justice are one of the main periodic conferences of the United Nations and play a major role in international standard-setting and policy-making in crime prevention and criminal justice. The congresses bring together policy-makers and practitioners in the area of crime prevention and criminal justice, as well as parliamentarians, individual experts from academia, representatives from civil society and the media. (http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/crime-congress/crime-congresses.html ) The work of the Commission can be viewed in preparation for these Congresses. The Congress and Crime Commission are supported and hosted by the United Nations Office of Drugs and Crimes (UNODC) which provides administrative, research, and technical support to the work of the Commission.  (http://www.unodc.org/unodc/index.html?ref=menutop ) UNODC publishes guides of best practice in a variety of criminal justice areas which are very helpful and informative (and free online: http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/justice-and-prison-reform/tools.html?ref=menuside ).

 

 Introduction to the Friends World Committee for Consultation

 I am attending the Crime Commission as a representative for the Friends World Committee for Consultation (FWCC).  (http://www.fwccworld.org/ ) FWCC was set up at the 1937 Second World Conference of Friends in Swarthmore, Pennsylvania, US, "to act in a consultative capacity to promote better understanding among Friends the world over, particularly by the encouragement of joint conferences and inter-visitation, the collection and circulation of information about Quaker literature and other activities directed towards that end."

 Since 1948, FWCC has had “consultative” status with the United Nations and is responsible for the two Quaker UN Offices in Geneva and New York. Under the auspices of the Friends World Committee for Consultation (FWCC), the Quaker United Nations Offices (QUNO) build contacts with government missions and UN staff, attend relevant UN meetings, collaborate with other non-governmental organizations, and makes oral and written presentations to UN meetings. (http://www.quno.org/ )

Quakers have been attending the Crime Commission since 1975 when Canadian Barrister Broughton started attending UN Congresses on the Prevention of Crime and Treatment of Offenders. In 1985, Nicholas McGeorge joined him at the Congress in Milan. Nick was the person who recruited me to join the team of people work at the Crime Commission.

Summary of the Day

            The day began with a meeting of the Non-Government Organizations (NGOs) as they discussed which “side events” they were hosting, and which administrative meetings of leadership should be attended.   “Side events” are educational opportunities for State delegates to learn about a topic in more depth, and occur in the morning and around lunch time.  FWCC is scheduled to present a side event on Thursday on the treatment of children of prisoners.

We were invited to draft and share a statement on environmental crime to the General meeting, called the “Plenary.” I offered to take a first shot at a draft and we met periodically throughout the day to make revisions.  Then the draft was circulated to various Quaker organizations around the world with an interest in our work.

I also attended a meeting on children coming into conflict with the law, a more elegant and thoughtful way of saying "juvenile justice. The presentation was called: Inculcating Justice in Succeeding Generations by Building a Culture of Lawfulness.

In the afternoon I attended a session on Environmental crimes.

I am planning to write separate blogs on specific issues to give them more attention and shorten the presentation.

After the sessions, Kerry and I moved our luggage for the third night in a row. We had difficulty in the first apartment (“flat”) where we stayed, some mold issues. The hotel down the street only had room for one night, and so we finally found a place for the week.  It was perfect for us. It is a working class neighborhood and our apartment is across the street from the playground. You can hear the sound of children practicing the piano in our apartment building, and I thought of our kids making noise all the time at home on their instruments. The only problem with our apartment was that it is on the fifth floor and there is no elevator; so, I hoisted all of our luggage up several flights of stairs.

In the evening we had dinner in a local family restaurant around the corner.

As I have time to reflect on this trip, I am deeply humbled and honored.  I never imagined that a country boy from Tennessee would have the opportunity to travel abroad in order to participate in an international body. I am particularly honored to try to represent the perspective of Quakers, with our long historical commitment to human rights and environmental care. When I see beautifully old buildings, or hear German all around me on the subway, I think that I may be in a dream.  I am so thankful to everyone who is supporting us with your thoughts, prayers, and help at home.