This is the final and fourth of the Limbo podcast. In the authors, Klara Nordahl, own words:
“This is, to me, the most important episode, of my podcast Limbo. This episode is about the personal stories from the people who are waiting or have received a resolution in the asylum system. A special thank to the courageous and kind people I have talked to.”
Together with assistant professor Martin Lemberg from Aalborg University, this episode will provide you with extensive contextual knowledge on border control and externalization and with Afghan moviemaker and human rights advocate Malek, Klara talk about deportation and Afghanistan.
Limbo is a podcast on awaiting and rejected asylum-seekers in Denmark and the conditions under which they live. The past five months I have gathered stories on rejected or awaiting asylum-seekers who are stalled awaiting their date of departure or asylum centres up till five years or more.
The overall aim of this podcast is to inform about the asylum-procedures in Denmark and to provide alternative documentation for a human rights issue in Denmark, which is often neglected by mainstream media and politicians. The podcast is produced by Klara Nordahl. She says about the podcast:
“Through this podcast, I want to stress that this group of people; families, individuals and children who are not granted asylum or recognised are still controlled and governed by the very same system that rejected them. I want to emphasise this as a paradox as well as a human rights issue, that Denmark, one of the wealthiest countries in the world, spends our taxes to make the lives of people who sought protection in Denmark in the first place, unbearable, for an unlimited period.”
The podcast consists of four episodes, which will be launched each Tuesday from this day.
It includes a historical backtracking of how Denmark has treated rejected asylum seekers priory and how rejected or awaiting asylum-seekers are treated to this day and other perspectives on migration. It also includes personal stories, which are diverse and you will learn that their reasoning for seeking asylum are likewise.
“With these personal stories, I also hope to show that asylum-seekers or refugees are not a homogenous group, but at the same time how they all share the limbo condition,” Klara Nordahl says.
The Universal – Annual Human Rights Review is looking for papers for its 2018 volume. The theme is “Human Rights in Context – Translation, Adaptation, and Dissemination”.
The deadline for submitting abstracts is November 15, 2017.
The fifth seminar in the series “Atrocities and the Development of Human Rights” focused on how human rights has changed global political and legal landscapes as a reaction to the genocides in Rwanda and Bosnia and the fall of the South African Apartheid regime in the 90’s.
Troels Gaulsø from Department of Political Science at University of Copenhagen focused on international politics the changing role of the UN Security Council.
Jakob v. H. Holtermann from Faculty of Law at University of Copenhagen focused on the institutionalisation of human rights and international criminal law through tribunals and international courts.
How are human rights and security related in international politics? And how is it changing?
Since the 90’s we have witnessed a rise of human rights on the UN security agenda. The number of mentions of human rights in resolutions in the UN Security Council has risen 7-fold in this period and the UN Security Council has started receiving monthly briefings from UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.
The Responsibility to Protect doctrine (R2P), obliging the international community to assist or ultimately intervene if states fail to protect their citizens, is a part of this development and came as a reaction to the failure of the international community in preventing the genocides in Rwanda and Bosnia.
The mainstream understanding of security is broadening to include intra-state human rights issues. To some states like Russia and China this development is viewed as a threat to national sovereignty.
Jakob v. H. Holtermann
Should war criminals be punished or offered conditional amnesty if they agree to cooperate? These have been the two ways in which atrocities have handled after since the 90’s. But what are the pros and cons of the two? And is peace or justice more important?
In his presentation Jakob v. H. Holtermann showed how a number of the implicit arguments for punishing might not make sense in international crimes. In many atrocities violence is normalized to the point that it becomes meaningless to point out individual perpetuators. And in some cases the threat of punishment might lead despots to cling on to power thereby potentially jeopardizing peace.
In the case of South Africa perpetrators were offered amnesty under the circumstance that they cooperate in bringing forward information that could help bring “truth and reconciliation” – information that they might have withheld if under threat of punishment. This may well have paved the way for peace – but did it bring justice?
Jakob Lindmark Frier is the new chairperson. Jakob has a master degree in business studies and communication from RUC and since last year he has expanded the scope of Think Rights into the area of human rights and businesses.
Morten Bruun is our new vice-chairperson. Morten recently finished his B.Sc. in sociology at UCPH and will be pursuing his masters this fall. He has had an important role in planning and executing our recent seminar series Atrocities and Development of Human Rights and he is now leading the development of a new series in the fall.
On the 13th of April Robin May Schott gave her talk on sexual violence in conflict. As is the case for most issues in human rights, we are dealing with a very complex issue. Rape has always been part of war, but it has only recently become the focus of scholarly research and political action. The genocide in Rwanda and the Yugoslavian civil war made the public aware of the issue.
Though the new found focus on preventing rape is indeed positive, much can be criticized about the way the issue has been tackled in international politics. The political discourse has been dominated by a binary logic – with women as victims and men as perpetrators. This focus tends to both diminish the agency of women and overlook male victims of rape. In this, the political discourse reproduces a binary concept of gender.
The language ‘rape as a weapon of war’ is equally problematic. Rape is not only a strategy used during conflict, but might better be described as a practice of war. Something tolerated, but not necessarily planed. The challenge is then, how can we focus on changing the social conditions that lead to rape?
A lecture by Ahlam Chemlali, Project Manager at DIGNITY
Imagine that you have been forced into a room. The room is filled with a constant explosion of sounds, blinking lights and distorted visual effects. You are locked in, and exposed to this cacophony of sounds and light until you are on the verge of breaking.
This was how Ahlam Chemlali, Project Manager at DIGNITY, described a new torture technique known as a ‘fun house’. This technique does not leave a physical mark on the body, but has psychological implications, and it is a technique that lets democratic countries, such as the UK, outsource torture to non-democratic countries, such as Saudi Arabia. And with that description she kicked off the third seminar in Think Rights’ seminar series Atrocities and the Development of Human Rights.
In her lecture, Chemlali discussed how states legitimize torture by making it a matter of protecting states from terrorism and protecting civilians by getting information out of suspects. However, she asserted that this, by no means, is based on facts or scientific research. It is solely based on fear. This is also the case when Ted Cruz says that waterboarding isn’t torture but ‘just’ enhanced interrogation, or when Donald Trump says that he’ll “bring a hell of a lot worse than waterboarding”. To this Chemlali added: “Waterboarding is torture, there are no grey areas”.
The first seminar in the series: ’Atrocities and the History of Human Rights’ was held at Studenterhuset on February 10, 2016. Morten Dige from Aarhus University visited Studenterhuset to conduct the seminar, and it was a great success! ‘Human Dignity and Human Rights’ set the frame for the seminar, which gave rise to a provoking and fascinating philosophical debate with a lively crowd wanting to discuss the nature of humanity.
Who has the right to dignity, and how has dignity as a term changed over time? What is the relation between dignity and human rights? And is the concept of human dignity a basis of human rights? These were just some of the questions, which Morten Dige addressed during the seminar. Not only did these questions open up for a conceptual discussion about humanity and what the term implies and means, it also linked the concepts of philosophy and history, which gave the audience something to think about in terms of the general application of human rights, and in terms of the contemporary issues relating to the concepts of human rights and dignity.
This seminar provided the foundation for the Atrocities-series.
You can listen to the presentation here:
You can also download Morten Diges power point Presentation.