Today marks anniversary of Universal Declaration of Human Rights

December 10, 2010
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Reporter Rebecca Berfanger wrote this blog post.

To celebrate the anniversary of the United Nation’s proclamation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on Dec. 10, 1948, organizations around the world have celebrated the words in that document on or near Dec. 10.

At Indiana University School of Law – Indianapolis, various human rights groups have come together since at least 2008, the 60th anniversary, and every year the celebration has grown.

This year, supporters of human rights in Indiana met in the law school’s atrium on Dec. 3, the last day of the last week of classes before final exams started.

After enjoying free dinner from India Garden and music courtesy of DJ Kyle Long of Cultural Cannibals, who has provided entertainment since the inaugural event, attendees listened to speakers share their viewpoints and activism, including their work with undocumented immigrants, how they have aided victims of human trafficking, efforts in Indiana to protect workers, and how art can express violations of these rights.

Following a brief introduction from LL.M. student Avril Rua, a lawyer at the Legal Aid Center of Eldoret, Kenya, Ian McIntosh, director of international partnerships and anthropology professor for Indiana University – Purdue University Indianapolis, discussed the parable of the starfish.

Many people raised their hands to acknowledge they had heard the story before, including myself.

He then told the story: after a million starfish were thrown from the ocean onto the shore, a man walking down the beach noticed a boy throwing them back in, one by one. When the man approached the boy to tell him he couldn’t possibly save all the starfish, there were simply too many, the boy then threw in another one, and said, “but I can save this one.”

This is a good way to look at helping others whose human rights are being violated, McIntosh said. But the real challenge should be how to create systemic change that will prevent the starfish from ending up on the shore in the first place, or keep them in the ocean after they are thrown back.

Following McIntosh, professor George Edwards, director of the law school’s Program in International Human Rights Law, moderated a panel discussion of eight speakers, including artists and activists.

While they presented too much information in that hour to include here, speakers included:

- Latino Youth Collective, whose members were involved in a hunger strike for the passage of the DREAM Act, which would offer a path to citizenship for immigrant youth who have spent most of their lives in the United States;

- artists of the Invisible Frontier Art Exhibition, works from which were displayed at the back of the room;

- Center for Victim and Human Rights, which helps victims of human trafficking;

- Central Indiana Jobs with Justice, which has been working with hotel workers in Indianapolis to receive a fair wage; and

- UNITE-HERE, an organization that represents workers in low-wage industries that include many immigrant workers and women, including hospitality, gaming, food service, manufacturing, textile, laundry, and airport industries.

While informative, the event was meant to be a call to action, and a reminder that the ideal that every person is entitled to certain rights through the UDHR shouldn’t only be one day, but every day.

As one speaker said, human rights violations take place every day – but that doesn’t mean nothing can be done to help those who are oppressed, for whatever reason. People can make a meaningful difference, whether that’s through pro bono work for a legal aid organization or volunteering for a charity of one’s choice.

While you can’t save all the starfish, you can still make a difference, for one starfish at a time.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. Living in South Bend, I travel to Michigan a lot. Virtually every gas station sells cold beer there. Many sell the hard stuff too. Doesn't seem to be a big deal there.

  2. Mr. Ricker, how foolish of you to think that by complying with the law you would be ok. Don't you know that Indiana is a state that welcomes monopolies, and that Indiana's legislature is the one entity in this state that believes monopolistic practices (such as those engaged in by Indiana Association of Beverage Retailers) make Indiana a "business-friendly" state? How can you not see this????

  3. Actually, and most strikingly, the ruling failed to address the central issue to the whole case: Namely, Black Knight/LPS, who was NEVER a party to the State court litigation, and who is under a 2013 consent judgment in Indiana (where it has stipulated to the forgery of loan documents, the ones specifically at issue in my case)never disclosed itself in State court or remediated the forged loan documents as was REQUIRED of them by the CJ. In essence, what the court is willfully ignoring, is that it is setting a precedent that the supplier of a defective product, one whom is under a consent judgment stipulating to such, and under obligation to remediate said defective product, can: 1.) Ignore the CJ 2.) Allow counsel to commit fraud on the state court 3.) Then try to hide behind Rooker Feldman doctrine as a bar to being held culpable in federal court. The problem here is the court is in direct conflict with its own ruling(s) in Johnson v. Pushpin Holdings & Iqbal- 780 F.3d 728, at 730 “What Johnson adds - what the defendants in this suit have failed to appreciate—is that federal courts retain jurisdiction to award damages for fraud that imposes extrajudicial injury. The Supreme Court drew that very line in Exxon Mobil ... Iqbal alleges that the defendants conducted a racketeering enterprise that predates the state court’s judgments ...but Exxon Mobil shows that the Rooker Feldman doctrine asks what injury the plaintiff asks the federal court to redress, not whether the injury is “intertwined” with something else …Because Iqbal seeks damages for activity that (he alleges) predates the state litigation and caused injury independently of it, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not block this suit. It must be reinstated.” So, as I already noted to others, I now have the chance to bring my case to SCOTUS; the ruling by Wood & Posner is flawed on numerous levels,BUT most troubling is the fact that the authors KNOW it's a flawed ruling and choose to ignore the flaws for one simple reason: The courts have decided to agree with former AG Eric Holder that national banks "Are too big to fail" and must win at any cost-even that of due process, case precedent, & the truth....Let's see if SCOTUS wants a bite at the apple.

  4. I am in NJ & just found out that there is a judgment against me in an action by Driver's Solutions LLC in IN. I was never served with any Court pleadings, etc. and the only thing that I can find out is that they were using an old Staten Island NY address for me. I have been in NJ for over 20 years and cannot get any response from Drivers Solutions in IN. They have a different lawyer now. I need to get this vacated or stopped - it is now almost double & at 18%. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

  5. I am in NJ & just found out that there is a judgment against me in an action by Driver's Solutions LLC in IN. I was never served with any Court pleadings, etc. and the only thing that I can find out is that they were using an old Staten Island NY address for me. I have been in NJ for over 20 years and cannot get any response from Drivers Solutions in IN. They have a different lawyer now. I need to get this vacated or stopped - it is now almost double & at 18%. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

ADVERTISEMENT