This was originally published on the Guardian America site.

Georgia judge jails Muslim woman for wearing headscarf to court
• Two women barred from entering courtroom in recent days
• Sabreen Abdulrahmaan sentenced to 10 days in jail

by Daniel Nasaw in Washington
Wednesday 17 December 2008 21.15 GMT

Lisa Valentine was arrested after a Georgia judge charged her with contempt of court after refusing to take off her headscarf. Photograph: John Amis/AP

A city judge in Georgia has in the past eight days barred two Muslim women wearing Islamic headscarves from entering his courtroom, jailing one, and prompting an inquiry from the civil rights office at the US department of justice.

Judge Keith Rollins of Douglasville, Georgia, yesterday ordered Lisa Valentine, 41, to jail after she refused to remove her scarf before entering the courtroom, citing rules governing appropriate dress. Last week, Sabreen Abdulrahmaan was forced to leave Rollins's court before her son's probation hearing because she would not remove her scarf.

"It's a religious right," Valentine said. "It's our constitutional right that we can have our religious practices, no matter if it's a courtroom or not. He's supposed to be handing out justice, not taking away civil rights."

Valentine said she sought to accompany her nephew to a traffic hearing yesterday but was told by a court security officer that she could not enter the courtroom with her headscarf on. She said she refused to remove it and turned to leave, saying, "This is bullshit".

Security officers handcuffed her and brought her before Rollins, who sentenced her to 10 days in jail when she declined to defend her actions at the security checkpoint, her husband Omar Hall said. Valentine, an insurance underwriter, was forced to take off the scarf and don an orange jumpsuit, chained and put aboard a jail bus with men and women.

"It felt like I was naked, because that's how I feel without my hijab," Valentine said. "You could have taken off my clothes and it would have felt the same way."

Her husband phoned an Islamic civil rights organisation and sought an attorney, and she was released without explanation after about seven hours.

"Judge Keith Rollins has inexplicably, blatantly usurped our innate human rights as American citizens," Hall said.

Douglasville police told the Atlanta Journal Constitution that Valentine was jailed for violating a policy barring headgear in the court. Neither court officials nor the police department returned calls seeking comment. Reached by the Associated Press, Rollins declined to comment on Valentine's case.

"It's an issue of religious freedom, it's an issue of access to the American legal system," said Ibrahim Hooper, a spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a Washington-based Islamic civil rights advocacy group, which advised Valentine and Hall on the case. "There are all kinds of implications that you can take form this troubling incident."

The US department of justice is reviewing the matter, according to spokesman Jamie Hais. Hooper said that Eric Treene, special council for religious discrimination at the justice department's civil rights division, was examining the case.

Valentine's case was Rollins's second dispute with a hijab-clad woman in a week. Last week, Abdulrahmaan, a 55-year-old community organiser, went to Douglasville municipal court to observe her son's probation hearing. Security officers outside the courtroom initially denied her entry, saying Rollins does not allow scarves in the courtroom. She made it into the courtroom, but once inside a bailiff motioned for her to remove her scarf. She told him she was a Muslim, but then left when he started to approach her.

"There are a lot of prejudices here," Abdulrahmaan said. News of Valentine's case, "just sent my blood pressure all the way up".

Hooper of the Council on American-Islamic Relations said the matter does not merely affect Muslims.

"What if you're a Jewish man wearing a skull cap? What if you're a Catholic nun wearing a habit?" Hooper asked. "All would be denied access to this judge's courtroom. We need to know what's going here and why this has apparently been going on for so long."

Below is a message directly from Jobs with Justice about the victory in Chicago at the Republic plant. For direct information go to the union's (United Electrical workers or UE) website here.

VICTORY AT REPUBLIC WINDOWS AND DOORS! Workers Vote to Get Pay; Occupation Ends! After 6 days occupying the plant, workers at Republic Window and Doors in Chicago voted to accept a settlement late last night. The settlement totals $1.75million. It will provide the workers with: Eight weeks of pay they are owed under the federal WARN Act; Two months of continued health coverage, and; Pay for all accrued and unused vacation. JPMorgan Chase will provide $400,000 of the settlement, with the balance coming from Bank of America. Although the money will be provided as a loan to Republic Windows and Doors, it will go directly into a third-party fund whose sole purpose is to pay the workers what is owed them. In addition, the UE has started the "Window of Opportunity Fund" dedicated to re-opening the plant. As the Local 1110 leaders characterized the settlement, "We fought to make them pay what they owe us, and we won." Read more about the settlement here. We want to extend a big THANK YOU to all of you who participated in this campaign. The tremendous support and solidarity from the thousands of people like you around the country - and the world - who took the time to send messages to Bank of America and who rallied at banks across the country was crucial in winning this victory. This is truly an historic victory for workers in the United States. But this struggle is just the beginning! As the economic crisis deepens we need to launch a working class fight back. Rallies for a "People's Bailout" will continue today and throughout the rest of the week. Click here to find an action near you (updated daily). You can also take action online: Tell Congress: We Demand a People's Bailout Save Autoworker Jobs VOTE NOW for Grinch of the Year Thanks again for all that you do! You can see photos, video, and press clips from the Week of Action here.

Today is the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). Below is a paper I wrote on human rights as a strategy. In it I correct the idea that the UDHR, and human rights in general, came about because of guilt following the Holocaust. This is simply false. Human rights was developed by people of color around the world as a strategy for ending colonialism and racial discrimination. It is an organizing strategy for economic development not a legal strategy. Happy December 10th.

HUMAN RIGHTS AS A DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY

On page seven of the introduction of the joint strategic plan for the United States Department of State and U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) it reads, “We must…foster development to combat poverty and to lay foundations for economic prosperity, human rights, and democracy.” (State/USAID, 2007) While it is convenient for rich countries to see human rights as secondary to development, the view is historically inaccurate. Moreover, the idea that development, either traditional or sustainable, can help or hinder human rights misses the point. Human rights, as pushed by the lesser developed countries of the Global South after World War II, is a development strategy.

The modern concept of human rights is articulated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). The popular myth of the creation of the UDHR is that a guilt-ridden world attempted to prevent future holocausts. For example, “Because of the genocidal horrors that occurred during World War II against Jews, Gypsies, and other groups in Europe, the world community founded the United Nations and immediately started working on a document that would be called the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).” (Snarr & Snarr, 2008) As is often the case with myth, reality is quite different. The United Nations was already being established by the time Auschwitz was liberated and before the full extent of the holocaust was known. What’s more, human rights was already at the center of the idea of the UN. (Waltz, 2002) Human rights do not exist because of guilt, they exist because of an international campaign led by countries and peoples of the Global South.

As soon as it was clear the Allies were going to win the war plans were being made to create the United Nations. Two conferences held in 1944 outside Washington, D.C. at Dumbarton Oaks led to the creation of a specific proposal. These conferences were attended by representatives from the U.S., Great Britain, the USSR, and China, although only the U.S. and Great Britain were at both events. The Dumbarton Oaks proposal released in 1945 mentioned human rights only once in the text. Even this was a compromise granted to China, the only country at the meetings fully committed to having the phrase in the document. (Waltz, 2002)

Fortunately, the Dumbarton Oaks proposal was not the final proposal. Countries around the world immediately responded, many with outrage. Twenty nations gathered at Chapultepec Castle in Mexico City for the Inter-American Conference on Problems of War & Peace as a direct counter to the Dumbarton Oaks proposal. The delegates stated that the Dumbarton Oaks plan needed to be improved and endorsed a list of fundamental principles they desired to have applied to the future peace. (Peace, 1945) The reaction within the U.S. was about the same. All manner of NGOs issued reports demanding that human rights be at the core of the new international organization, what became the United Nations. The American Bar Association, the American Federation of Labor, the Congress of Industrial Organizations, the Farm Bureau Federation, the NAACP, and others confronted State Department officials on human rights. In one month U.S. State Department personnel participated in more than 100 meetings, conferences and seminars with organizations across the country. In the end, the Dumbarton Oaks proposal was amended. (Korey, 2001)

In 1945 at the UN Conference on International Organization, human rights was given a central place in the charter. In addition, the permanent Commission on Human Rights was created. The Commission’s creation was largely due to the efforts of 42 US organizations and countless individuals who attended the conference. (Waltz, 2002) Edward R. Stettinius, Jr., an official U.S. representative at both the Dumbarton Oaks meetings and the UN Conference, said, “The provisions themselves owe much of their strength to the force of public opinion which was brought to bear in their support both before and during the San Francisco Conference.” (Edward R. Stettinius, 1946)

The rights defined in the UDHR can be divided into five areas: civil, political, economic, social, and cultural. Civil, political, and economic rights guarantee individual rights of equal treatment under law, participation in the political process, as well as protections at work and for property. Social and cultural rights can be viewed as collective rights of a people as well as for individuals. It was the intention of those fighting for human rights that all the rights be taken together. Human rights were proposed and are considered universal, inalienable, and indivisible. Human rights belong to all, they cannot be taken away, and the rights cannot be divided. Applying all five areas of rights at the same time to all was seen as necessary to counter racial discrimination and colonialism. (Waltz, 2002)

The history since the creation of the UDHR of African, Asian, and Latin American decolonization shows that the original idea of human rights as a development strategy can work. It is incumbent upon us that we not replace that lesson with myth.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Korey, W. (2001). NGOs and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights : a curious grapevine (1st Palgrave ed.). New York: Palgrave.

Peace, I.-A. C. o. W. a. (1945). Act of Chapultepec: Declarations on Reciprocal Assistance and American Solidarity Retrieved October 18, 2008, from http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/policy/1945/450303a.html

Snarr, M. T., & Snarr, N. (2008). Introducing global issues (4th ed.). Boulder, Colo.: Lynne Rienner Publishers.

State/USAID, U. S. D. o. (2007). Strategic Plan Fiscal Years 2007 - 2012. from http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/82819.pdf.

Stettinius, Edward R. (1946). Human Rights in the United Nations Charter. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 243(Essential Human Rights), 1-3.

Waltz, S. (2002). Reclaiming and Rebuilding the History of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Third World Quarterly, 23(3), 437-448.

Below is a great commentary on the move in the legislature to destroy Albany State and Savannah State by merging them with white schools. The essay is from Black Agenda Report, a great progressive site focusing on Black politics in the US as well as around the rest of the world.
The legislative champion of the move seems to be Rep. Seth Harp. I've written about Harp before. He pushed a plan to have counties vote on lifting the ban on alcohol sales on Sunday while also voting to ban municipalities from extending domestic partner benefits and from implementing living wage policies. At the end of this commentary is contact information for those interested in fighting to save Black colleges in Georgia.

PS - If the Georgia legislature were serious about cutting costs, why would they want to close colleges instead of prisons? Just a thought.

Black Colleges Face Whiteout
http://www.blackagendareport.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=924&Itemid=1
A Black Agenda Radio commentary by Glen Ford

"In Georgia, efforts are afoot to dismantle at least two Black colleges."

As the great unraveling of finance capitalism unfolds, lots of issues that were prime concerns in Black politics not long ago, are getting buried in the economic debris. To many, the survival of Black colleges seems less of a priority when measured against the loss of nearly two million jobs over the past year, and the impending erasure of what is left of the nation's industrial base. It is in times of general crisis that the enemies of identifiably African American institutions find new opportunities for mischief. Such is the case in Georgia, where efforts are afoot to dismantle at least two Black colleges: Savannah and Albany state universities.

Members of the Republican-controlled state legislature are using the economic crisis as a rationale to merge majority Black Savannah State with mostly white Armstrong Atlantic State University. Historically Black Albany State University would be forced to combine with majority white Darton College. Adding insult to injury, Darton College is only a two-year institution, a community college, while Albany State is a full university.

Modern-day racists have learned to cloak their anti-Black ideas in progressive-sounding language. Georgia Senate Higher Education Committee Chairman Seth Harp claims he wants to merge the Black universities with white schools because they're "part of the legacy of segregation." When a Georgia Republican goes on a crusade against the vestiges of Jim Crow, it's time to watch out! Senator Harp says the state would save money by eliminating duplication of administration and courses. Black lawmakers counter that the state could save money just as easily by merging nearby white-majority schools, such as Georgia Tech and Georgia State. But of course, the white alumnae of these two schools would not tolerate the loss of either institution's distinct identity.

"It is the white schools that have failed Black students."

Georgia's higher education chancellor Erroll Davis is more honest about the deal. He admits that a Black-white merger would be a "political decision," not one based on cost-cutting. The truth is, cost-cutting decisions are always also political decisions, based on relative political power. Georgia is betting that African Americans don't have the clout or inclination to save Savannah State and Albany State from institutional oblivion.

There is no question that Black colleges provide a modern, as well as historical, service of great value. White four-year state institutions seldom recruit Black students in numbers that even come close to the proportion of African Americans seeking higher education - and have even more difficulty retaining Blacks. The logical conclusion from the vast body of evidence is that white schools are often hostile environments for African Americans. In other words, it is the white schools that have failed Black students. White supremacist ideology cannot accept this obvious truth. No, the "problem" must always be rooted in Black institutions, or in Black culture - anything but white incompetence and hostility. Questions of equity in education require debate in which both parties are recognized as equals - which is precisely what racists cannot abide. Their solution is always to eliminate the Black voice - in this case, Black educational institutions - so that whites can win the argument by default. That is one lesson history has taught us.

For Black Agenda Radio, I'm Glen Ford.

BAR executive editor Glen Ford can be contacted at Glen.Ford@BlackAgendaReport.comThis e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it .

300 factory workers in Chicago have seized their factory after an announcement it would close. The workers are members of the United Electrical (UE) workers union, a militant independent union. You can check out the full story at the Chi Town Daily News. You can also follow the story along at the UE website.

The December 1, 2008 show of The Daily Show expresses quite nicely how I'm feeling about the Mumbai attacks. Funny, angry, sad.