Tuesday, February 21, 2006

Torture, Katrina, Pipes, Signs, Receipts, NO Film Festival

This time I'm mixing Katrina and non-Katrina postings, in what I imagine will be a gradual return to Middle East dominant postings. That said, this weekend is all New Orleans all the time, what with the first Mardi Gras after Katrina and my 40th birthday. Time for redemptive release.

1) Here's a New Yorker article on internal efforts to critique/prevent torture from within the US government establishment. There's an accompanying memo attached to the article:

2) Hold the Corps Accountable Signs now in NO:
Dear supporters,

A shipment of \"Hold the Corps Accountable\" signs has arrived!

These signs are incredibly important this week with 800 reporters in town for Mardi Gras and next week with 100 Congressmen in town to get a look-see of the devastation we have suffered.

For a yard sign, there are two pickup spots: Uptown: 1421 Soniat St uptown one block off St. Charles Ave on river side (in garage). River Ridge: 10005 Hyde Place in River Ridge off of Sauve Road (on porch). Drop by any time and take what you need.........

Our group got some excellent press today in Bayou Buzz a popular Louisiana electronic newsletter. Check it out at: http://www.bayoubuzz.com/articles.aspx?aid=6311

Keep talking about the Corps! It\'s the Corps!Sandy

3) Get these New Orleans t-shirts -- I did!:

We're finally set up to ship shirts again. The website has been updated slightly and includes a paypalbutton to order the black Defend New Orleans t-shirts.Feel free to send people here, spread the word, andpick up some new gifts...


Thank You for the continued support, and Happy MardiGras!

4) Katrina Paper Submission Call:

Title: Katrina: Race, Class, and Povery: Reflectionsand Analysis. Location: Louisiana Deadline: 2006-06-30 Description: Hurricane Katrina: Race, Class andPoverty: Reflections and Analysis Call for Papers: TheJournal of Black Studies is requesting contributionsfor a special edition examining the effects andaftermath of Hurricane Katrina. We invitecontributions from African-American Studies, History,Economics, Et ... Contact: Troy_Allen@subr.edu Announcement ID: 149884 http://www.h-net.org/announce/show.cgi?ID=149884

5) Hmmm. Daniel Pipes here defends himself from setting off the Danish cartoon scandal (from his own email listserve):

Those Danish Cartoons and Meby Daniel PipesNew York SunFebruary 21, 2006


Did you know that I had a hand in the Danish cartoons of Muhammad?
No? Well, neither did I until I found this out in early February on a conspiracist Web site. To clear the record, I'll start with the facts, then outline the conspiracy theory.

What actually happened: Flemming Rose, cultural editor of a Danish newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, sent me an e-mail on September 29, 2004, introducing himself and requesting an in-person interview during his American trip. I agreed and Mr. Rose came to my Philadelphia office on October 25, when he spent about half an hour asking me questions. His article on me, "Truslen fra islamismen" (or "The Threat of Islamism)," appeared on October 29. It is a standard journalistic piece in which Mr. Rose provided some biographical information about me and had me explain my views on radical Islam. (Both the Danish original and an English translation can be found on my Web site, www.DanielPipes.org.)

After that meeting, I had no further contact with Mr. Rose. To be more precise: We have since then not met, talked, or written to each other. I learned only from the press of his decision, nearly a year after our meeting, to commission and publish the cartoons.

That's the boring reality – a routine interview and nothing else. The more exciting conspiracy theory began when a fringe antisemitic writer named Christopher Bollyn published an analysis on February 3 announcing that "Rose traveled to Philadelphia in October 2004 to visit Daniel Pipes. … Rose then penned a positive article about Pipes."

Two days later, Mr. Bollyn transmogrified this fact into an elaborate conspiracy theory: "The anti-Muslim cartoon scandal is clearly turning out to be a key event in the Zionist Neo-Cons' ‘clash of civilizations,' the artificially constructed struggle to pit the so-called Christian West against the Islamic states and peoples. We know that Flemming Rose is a colleague and fellow of the Zionist Neo-Con Daniel Pipes. He has visited Pipes in Philadelphia and written a friendly biographical article."

Note Mr. Bollyn's three assumptions in this account: that Mr. Rose is my "colleague and fellow," that he and I together intentionally provoked Muslims, and that we are part of a wider conspiracy to worsen Christian-Muslim relations.

Such wild assumptions are standard fare for Mr. Bollyn. Concerning September 11, 2001, for example, he thinks President Bush and press tycoon Rupert Murdoch knew the plans in advance, that the Mossad had a key role in that day's events, that United Airlines flight 175 was not flown into the southern World Trade Center tower, and that the towers were destroyed either by an Israeli-American laser beam weapon or massive underground explosions.

Mr. Bollyn's theory connecting me to a clash of civilizations gained momentum within days. Leftist and Islamist writers variously described Mr. Rose as my "close associate," "disciple," and "protégé" and the Internet buzzed with rumors of my part in a "Neocon conspiracy." Even mainstream elements then picked up these ideas. A leading Arabic newspaper, Al-Hayat, speculated on February 10 about the "mutual admiration society" between Mr. Rose and myself. The PLO representative in Washington, Afif Safieh, told CNN's Wolf Blitzer on February 12 that Flemming Rose "is a fan and an admirer" of mine.

The mass-circulation Belgian weekly Knack then called me "the ideologue of the NeoCons" (which will come as news to William Kristol) and accused Mr. Rose, me, and others of instigating an "intentional NeoCon provocation."

I watched the spread of this fantastical account with bemusement and apprehension. As the author of two books and many articles on conspiracy theories, I have intensively studied these misguided attempts to understand reality. This time, I had the dubious privilege of doing so on the inside looking out. In response, I recalled two recommendations from my 1992 CIA-commissioned report suggesting ways for the American government to handle conspiracy theories.

Deny the validity of conspiracy theories: Following my own advice, I placed a correction on my website, discussed the topic on Al-Jazeera television, and am addressing the matter here.

Anticipate malign interpretations: In today's vicious and vulgar political discourse, public figures must anticipate that their actions, however minor and innocent, might randomly be plucked out of obscurity and framed as part of some grand design. One cannot prevent this but the damage can be minimized by keeping careful documentation (e-mails, audio recordings, photographs) and producing them to refute distortions.
To subscribe to or unsubscribe from this list, go to http://www.DanielPipes.org/subscribe.php

6) Receipt Check in These United States:


I'm generally adverse to the whole shopping experienceand tend to operate in the power shopping, "hit andrun" mode.

So four shopping days before Christmas I decide thatmy remaining gifts will be digital satellite systems,and I proceed to the back of the Lakewood, CaliforniaBest Buy and end up at the mixed personalcommunications and odd-things-to-attach-to-your-TVcounter. Surveying my options, I feel vaguely lessmanly as I eschew the top-of-the-line,surround-sound-laden, multiple-receiver-ready modelsin favor of a pair of beginners packs inclusive of thedish, appropriate electronics, and every possiblewire, nut or bolt their future owners would need toget each going. Having made my decision, I'm now readyto be done.

I begin to understand that this would not be my fatetoday, though, as the "helpful" salesperson politelyignores my query for more stock than the one box Ifind and proceeds to tell me about the great featuresof the higher end systems, including the dishes thatallow the use of two receivers simultaneously so Iwon't need to buy more than one complete system.

After being convinced that I'm not going to budge frommy decision and trekking off to what must've been theend of the earth to retrieve my box, I'm told thatthese items must be checked out at the counter I'mstanding in front of. Before he will even take mycredit card, though, I have to fill out my name,address, etc on three different forms which then getlaboriously typed into the register. By the time we'rethrough the repeated sales pitch on the extendedwarranty and the inspection of the contents of mypurchases, I'm in what might be considered a hurry toleave.

So when I'm faced with the prospect of standing in along line at the exit to have yet another person riflethrough my property, I dodge the line and head for anunused automatic door, countering an insistent "Sir,can I see your receipt?" with a polite "No, thankyou."

I've gotten so used to this trick at Fry's Electronicsthat I don't really think twice about it. You see,Fry's doesn't trust their underpaid staff manning thecash registers to actually do their jobs right, sothey post a door guard to ask people walking away fromthe registers carrying plastic bags to let them verifythat all of the items in the bag were rung up on thereceipt.

But this verification step is purely voluntary.Merchants basically have two rights covering peopleentering and exiting their stores. They can refuse tolet you enter the premises and/or to sell youanything, and they can place you under citizens arrestfor attempting to leave the premises with any propertythat you haven't paid for. But the second you handover the appropriate amount of cash, they lose allrights to the items. They can't legally impair youfrom leaving the store with your property.

Apparently the employees of my local Best Buy aren'tvery familiar with annoying pedantic individuals whowill choose principals over convenience when walkingout with a shopping cart full of expensive homeentertainment gear. I manage to get about 5 steps outthe door before the door guard catches up to me andgrabs my cart, with the "sir" in his "I need to seeyour receipt, sir" somehow not very complimentary.This is apparently a stalling tactic, as shortly a fewmore blue-shirted employees make a move to block mefrom making any more progress toward my car.

I ask, still calm, if I am being detained forshoplifting. This suggestion apparently shocks mycaptor into regaining some of his senses, and he letsgo of my cart. I explain that unless he wishes to doso, he has no right to stop me.

This is clearly baffling to the poor fellow. Hesuggests again that my receipt simply needs to bechecked, struggling to grasp why it is that I won'tjust be a nice little customer and submit to the storepolicy. I spend a few moments trying to explainmyself, but clearly have too much adrenaline flowingat this point to be particularly erudite. I give upand proceed in the direction of my car.

Shortly a yellow-shirted fellow, who I take to be amanagerial-type, again tries to plead a case for thereceipt-checking. I ask again if I'm being detainedfor shoplifting. He says no, but shortly thereaftermentions that he'll need to call the police shortly ifI don't offer a receipt. I tell him to please do so,while loading my packages into the car. I suggest thatbefore doing so he take a moment to talk to either thehelpful salesperson who rung me up or to compare theirinventory against sales receipts, as to avoid lookinglike an ass to the cops.

As I get in my car to leave, two Best Buy lackeys in apickup truck decide its a good time to park behind me,blocking my path again. By this time, I've had justenough of this crap and not very politely ordiscreetly ask them to get out of the way. With only alittle hesitation, the yellow-shirt nods in theirdirection and I'm soon free to leave.

Its been a few hours, but I'm still half expecting aman with a badge and a gun to show up at my door tocheck my receipt.

-- Aaron Hopkins

7) Women in War Conference:

Dear activists, community leaders and others,

The Women's Studies Committee of South Texas Collegeis currently soliticing papers and presenters for our
Women and War conference to be held 18-20 April, 2006.

As we have already booked Yanar Mohammed and JoyceRiley as speakers, we are interested in havinguniversity and high school students talk aboutcounter-recruitment campaigns and or the differencesbetween fantasy (what recruiters say) and reality(what inductees and "volunteers" learn).
We also might be able to pay the travel and lodgingcosts of those attendees who represent student orpeace groups that deal with these issues (viareimbursement).

NB the offer for reimbursement can only be offered tothe first group or person who respond, who meet thisnarrow criteria - so time IS of the essence.

To get a feeling for the mood and interests of ourconference in general, please see the attachedannouncement (a call for papers), distribute widelyand inform, faculty, students, friends, and media.

Thank you

John Calvin Jones, PhD, JDSouth Texas College (Mid-Valley Campus)Weslaco, TX

Call for papers: Women and War Conference in SouthTexas, April 2006

The Women's Studies committee of South Texas College(McAllen, Texas - only a few miles from the Mexicanborder and 90 minutes from South Padre Island) isorganizing a conference on Women and War this spring(April 18-20, 2006). We have already obtainedcommitments for two dynamic speakers, Ms. YanarMohammed, President, Organization of Women's Freedomin Iraq (OWFI), and former Capt. (USAF) Joyce RileyvonKleist, RN, BSN.

Ms. Mohammed will provide a first-hand account of thelives of women and their families in Iraq since theU.S. invasion and occupation of March 2003, while Ms.Riley shall provide a lecture on the effects ofAmerica's depleted uranium weapons that cause illnessand cancer in civilians, our troops, and spouses andchildren of Iraq war veterans.

To learn more about our speakers please visit thefollowing websites:

http://www.equalityiniraq.com (Yanar Mohammed); and

http://www.beyondtreason.com (the work of Joyce Rileyon the effects of Depleted Uranium)

We invite researchers, faculty, graduate students,community and organizational leaders to presentfindings and observations on a wide range of issuesrelated to "women and war" (or understood as theeffects of war on women) from refugees andreproductive disruptions, to economic and socialchanges and the role of arts, media, and governmentpropaganda in wartime.

As well, we encourage people from all disciplineswithin and without Liberal Arts, Humanities, and theSciences. Given the short notice, we extend theperiod to receive abstracts through March 21, 2006. Please send your completed papers or abstracts viae-mail to the Chair of the Women's Studies Committee,Ms. Jenny Clark at: jclark@southtexascollege.edu orJohn Calvin Jones, PhD, JD at:jcjones@southtexascollege.edu. Please include theterm "Women and War" in the subject line.
We shall make prompt responses of acceptance orrejection.

Thank you

8) Is the Iraq invasion a War of Aggression?:


Campaigners ask courts to rule Iraq war a 'crime ofaggression'

By Joshua Rozenberg, Legal Editor(Filed: 20/02/2006)

Britain's most senior judges will be asked today for aruling that could lead to the war in Iraq beingdeclared an illegal "crime of aggression".

Until now, the courts have taken the view that theycannot rule on the Crown's prerogative powers to wagewar. But today the law lords will start hearingappeals by peace protesters who claim they wereentitled to commit "criminal" acts in an attempt toprevent what they saw as the greater crime oflaunching an illegal war.
Nobody has been punished for aggression ininternational law since the Nuremberg Tribunalexecuted former Nazi officers in 1946. The newInternational Criminal Court does not yet havejurisdiction over the crime, partly because ofdifficulties in agreeing a definition of it.

But the Government has been told by its senior legaladviser that ministers could face such charges underEnglish law.

In the Attorney General's advice to the Prime Ministerof March 7, 2003, Lord Goldsmith said: "Aggression isa crime under customary international law whichautomatically forms part of domestic law. It mighttherefore be argued that international aggression is acrime recognised by the common law which can beprosecuted in the UK courts."

Lord Goldsmith warned Tony Blair to expect opponentsof military action to bring a case against theGovernment or military personnel. "We cannot becertain that they would not succeed," the AttorneyGeneral said. The first test case involves five peacecampaigners who face criminal damage charges relatingto RAF Fairford, Glos, and who are due to stand trialin Bristol later this year.

Another case involves 14 Greenpeace activistsconvicted of aggravated trespass after they occupiedtanks at Marchwood military base in Southampton.

The third appeal has been brought by a woman convictedof aggravated trespass at RAF Fairford.
All of them claim that they are entitled to a defenceunder Section 3 of the Criminal Law Act, which says "aperson may use such force as is reasonable in thecircumstances in the prevention of crime".

The law lords are not being asked to rule whether thedecision to take military action against Iraq amountedto aggression. Instead, the five campaigners due tostand trial in Bristol want them to rule that they canraise the argument in their defence.

9) ISIM Review Editor's Position (this is a good job):

International Institute for the Study of Islam in theModern World - Editor ISIM Review (Netherlands)

10) On a Potential Israeli Boycott:

Why an Economic Boycott of Israel is Justified

by Norman G. Finkelstein
Aftenposten 01.14.2006

The recent proposal that Norway boycott Israeli goodshas provoked passionate debate. In my view, a rationalexamination of this issue would pose two questions: 1)Do Israeli human rights violations warrant an economicboycott? and 2) Can such a boycott make a meaningfulcontribution toward ending these violations? I wouldargue that both these questions should be answered inthe affirmative.

Although the subject of many reports by human rightsorganizations, Israel's real human rights record inthe Occupied Palestinian Territory is generally notwell known abroad. This is primarily due to theformidable public relations industry of Israel'sdefenders as well as the effectiveness of theirtactics of intimidation, such as labeling critics ofIsraeli policy anti-Semitic.

Yet, it is an incontestable fact that Israel hascommitted a broad range of human rights violations,many rising to the level of war crimes and crimesagainst humanity. These include:

Illegal Killings. Whereas Palestinian suicide attackstargeting Israeli civilians have garnered much mediaattention, Israel's quantitatively worse record ofkilling non-combatants is less well known. Accordingto the most recent figures of the Israeli InformationCenter for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories(B'Tselem), 3,386 Palestinians have been killed sinceSeptember 2000, of whom 1,008 were identified ascombatants, as opposed to 992 Israelis killed, of whom309 were combatants. This means that three times morePalestinians than Israelis have been killed and up tothree times more Palestinian civilians than Israelicivilians. Israel's defenders maintain that there's adifference between targeting civilians andinadvertently killing them. B'Tselem disputes this:"[W]hen so many civilians have been killed andwounded, the lack of intent makes no difference.Israel remains responsible." Furthermore, AmnestyInternational reports that "many" Palestinians havenot been accidentally killed but "deliberatelytargeted," while the award-winning New York Timesjournalist Chris Hedges reports that Israeli soldiers"entice children like mice into a trap and murder themfor sport."

Torture. "From 1967," Amnesty reports, "the Israelisecurity services have routinely tortured Palestinianpolitical suspects in the Occupied Territories."B'Tselem found that eighty-five percent ofPalestinians interrogated by Israeli security serviceswere subjected to "methods constituting torture,"while already a decade ago Human Rights Watchestimated that "the number of Palestinians tortured orseverely ill-treated" was "in the tens of thousands -a number that becomes especially significant when itis remembered that the universe of adult andadolescent male Palestinians in the West Bank and Gazais under three-quarters of one million." In 1987Israel became "the only country in the world to haveeffectively legalized torture" (Amnesty). Although theIsraeli Supreme Court seemed to ban torture in a 1999decision, the Public Committee Against Torture inIsrael reported in 2003 that Israeli security forcescontinued to apply torture in a "methodical androutine" fashion. A 2001 B'Tselem study documentedthat Israeli security forces often applied "severetorture" to "Palestinian minors."

House demolitions. "Israel has implemented a policy ofmass demolition of Palestinian houses in the OccupiedTerritories," B'Tselem reports, and since September2000 "has destroyed some 4,170 Palestinian homes."Until just recently Israel routinely resorted to housedemolitions as a form of collective punishment.According to Middle East Watch, apart from Israel, theonly other country in the world that used such adraconian punishment was Iraq under Saddam Hussein. Inaddition, Israel has demolished thousands of "illegal"homes that Palestinians built because of Israel'srefusal to provide building permits. The motive behinddestroying these homes, according to Amnesty, has beento maximize the area available for Jewish settlers:"Palestinians are targeted for no other reason thanthey are Palestinians." Finally, Israel has destroyedhundred of homes on security pretexts, yet a HumanRights Watch report on Gaza found that "the pattern ofdestruction.strongly suggests that Israeli forcesdemolished homes wholesale, regardless of whether theyposed a specific threat." Amnesty likewise found that"Israel's extensive destruction of homes andproperties throughout the West Bank and Gaza.is notjustified by military necessity," and that "Some ofthese acts of destruction amount to grave breaches ofthe Fourth Geneva Convention and are war crimes."
Apart from the sheer magnitude of its human rightsviolations, the uniqueness of Israeli policies meritsnotice. "Israel has created in the OccupiedTerritories a regime of separation based ondiscrimination, applying two separate systems of lawin the same area and basing the rights of individualson their nationality," B'Tselem has concluded. "Thisregime is the only one of its kind in the world, andis reminiscent of distasteful regimes from the past,such as the apartheid regime in South Africa." Ifsingling out South Africa for an internationaleconomic boycott was defensible, it would seem equallydefensible to single out Israel's occupation, whichuniquely resembles the apartheid regime.

Although an economic boycott can be justified on moralgrounds, the question remains whether diplomacy mightbe more effectively employed instead. The documentaryrecord in this regard, however, is not encouraging.The basic terms for resolving the Israel-Palestineconflict are embodied in U.N. resolution 242 andsubsequent U.N. resolutions, which call for a fullIsraeli withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza and theestablishment of a Palestinian state in these areas inexchange for recognition of Israel's right to live inpeace and security with its neighbors. Each year theoverwhelming majority of member States of the UnitedNations vote in favor of this two-state settlement,and each year Israel and the United States (and a fewSouth Pacific islands) oppose it. Similarly, in March2002 all twenty-two member States of the Arab Leagueproposed this two-state settlement as well as "normalrelations with Israel." Israel ignored the proposal.

Not only has Israel stubbornly rejected this two-statesettlement, but the policies it is currently pursuingwill abort any possibility of a viable Palestinianstate. While world attention has been riveted byIsrael's redeployment from Gaza, Sara Roy of HarvardUniversity observes that the "Gaza Disengagement Planis, at heart, an instrument for Israel's continuedannexation of West Bank land and the physicalintegration of that land into Israel." In particularIsrael has been constructing a wall deep inside theWest Bank that will annex the most productive land andwater resources as well as East Jerusalem, the centerof Palestinian life. It will also effectively severthe West Bank in two. Although Israel initiallyclaimed that it was building the wall to fightterrorism, the consensus among human rightsorganizations is that it is really a land grab toannex illegal Jewish settlements into Israel. RecentlyIsrael's Justice Minister frankly acknowledged thatthe wall will serve as "the future border of the stateof Israel."

The current policies of the Israeli government willlead either to endless bloodshed or the dismembermentof Palestine. "It remains virtually impossible toconceive of a Palestinian state without its capital inJerusalem," the respected Crisis Group recentlyconcluded, and accordingly Israeli policies in theWest Bank "are at war with any viable two-statesolution and will not bolster Israel's security; infact, they will undermine it, weakening Palestinianpragmatists.and sowing the seeds of growingradicalization."

Recalling the U.N. Charter principle that it isinadmissible to acquire territory by war, theInternational Court of Justice declared in a landmark2004 opinion that Israel's settlements in the OccupiedPalestinian Territory and the wall being built toannex them to Israel were illegal under internationallaw. It called on Israel to cease construction of thewall, dismantle those parts already completed andcompensate Palestinians for damages.

Crucially, italso stressed the legal responsibilities of theinternational community:
all States are under an obligation not to recognizethe illegal situation resulting from the constructionof the wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory,including in and around East Jerusalem. They are alsounder an obligation not to render aid or assistance inmaintaining the situation created by suchconstruction. It is also for all States, whilerespecting the United Nations Charter andinternational law, to see to it that any impediment,resulting from the construction of the wall, to theexercise by the Palestinian people of its right toself-determination is brought to an end.A subsequent U.N. General Assembly resolutionsupporting the World Court opinion passedoverwhelmingly. However, the Israeli governmentignored the Court's opinion, continuing constructionat a rapid pace, while Israel's Supreme Court ruledthat the wall was legal.

Due to the obstructionist tactics of the UnitedStates, the United Nations has not been able toeffectively confront Israel's illegal practices.Indeed, although it is true that the U.N. keeps Israelto a double standard, it's exactly the reverse of theone Israel's defenders allege: Israel is held not to ahigher but lower standard than other member States. Astudy by Marc Weller of Cambridge University comparingIsrael and the Occupied Palestinian Territory withcomparable situations in Bosnia and Herzegovina,Kosovo, East Timor, occupied Kuwait and Iraq, andRwanda found that Israel has enjoyed "virtualimmunity" from enforcement measures such as an armsembargo and economic sanctions typically adopted bythe U.N. against member States condemned for identicalviolations of international law. Due in part to anaggressive campaign accusing Europe of a "newanti-Semitism," the European Union has also failed inits legal obligation to enforce international law inthe Occupied Palestinian Territory. Although the claimof a "new anti-Semitism" has no basis in fact (all theevidence points to a lessening of anti-Semitism inEurope), the EU has reacted by appeasing Israel. Ithas even suppressed publication of one of its ownreports, because the authors -- like the Crisis Groupand many others -- concluded that due to Israelipolicies the "prospects for a two-state solution witheast Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine arereceding."

The moral burden to avert the impending catastrophemust now be borne by individual states that areprepared to respect their obligations underinternational law and by individual men and women ofconscience. In a courageous initiative American-basedHuman Rights Watch recently called on the U.S.government to reduce significantly its financial aidto Israel until Israel terminates its illegal policiesin the West Bank. An economic boycott would seem to bean equally judicious undertaking. A nonviolent tacticthe purpose of which is to achieve a just and lastingsettlement of the Israel-Palestine conflict cannotlegitimately be called anti-Semitic. Indeed, the realenemies of Jews are those who cheapen the memory ofJewish suffering by equating principled opposition toIsrael's illegal and immoral policies withanti-Semitism.

11) New Orleans Human Rights Festival:

The 2006 Third Annual New Orleans International Human Rights Film Festival

APRIL 6 - 15, 2006

The New Orleans International Human Rights Film Festival was created to support New Orleans’ social justice community. The 2006 festival is dedicated to a vision of justice for New Orleans and worldwide.

We are proud to bring this festival of cinema to New Orleans in partnership with local social justice organizations doing vital work in this city. Our goal is to raise awareness of human rights issues and provide a forum for artistic expression of these themes.

Support The Festival

The Human Rights Festival is an all-volunteer effort. Proceeds support local organizing. Please donate or volunteer to support the festival. Visit www.nolahumanrights.org/support.html for more information.

Call For Entries

The New Orleans International Human Rights Film Festival is now accepting submissions for the 2006 festival. Films can be from anywhere in the world, fiction or documentary, short or feature – but must deal with issues related to human rights and/or social justice. Film formats can be 16mm, DVD, Super8, VHS or MiniDV. Submissions must be received by February 17. There is no submission fee, however, we cannot guarantee submissions will be returned. For more details email zte@bellsouth.net or info@nolahumanrights.org.

Festival History:
The New Orleans International Human Rights Film Festival was founded in 2004 by a coalition of local organizers and community members, consulting with local organizations including the Louisiana ACLU, Families and Friends of Louisiana’s Incarcerated Children, New Orleans Palestine Solidarity, New Orleans American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, Planned Parenthood of Louisiana and the Mississippi Delta, Iron Rail Bookstore and Library, Neighborhood Gallery, Loyola Amnesty International, Zeitgeist Multidisciplinary Arts Center, and more. Although operated by an all-volunteer staff on a shoestring budget, the first annual festival presented a range of local and national premieres including Fourth World War, Until When, Lost Boys of Sudan, Rana’s Wedding, and the first New Orleans showing in at least thirty years of Battle of Algiers.

In 2005, the Second Annual New Orleans International Human Rights Film Festival presented 35 new films in 17 days and eight venues and featured two world premieres, Elections Fever and Four Months and Ten Days: A Journey Through Palestine. The following films from the 2005 festival were chosen for special recognition:
In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the people of New Orleans are struggling for justice, human rights, and the right of return.
Despite our hardship and loss, we are dedicated to continuing this festival in tribute to New Orleans’ community of resistance.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?