POSC 130g 1st Edition Lecture 20 Current LectureWhat rights do ethnic minorities and indigenous peoples possess? What public policies should protect their rights?Child AbuseTouching- Krasniqi case (1994): Motive is part of the definition of the crimeYou have to intend to touch the child with a purpose of sexual gratification- the motif is part of the definition for crime. There must be a specific intent crime, the motif must be with specific intent. Child sexual abuse gets defined that way because adults could never touch children in the genital area and couldn’t wash them, change their diapers, etc. The motif is actually part of the definition of the crime- this is unusual. Krasniqi was touching his daughter affectionately, as it was familiar to his culture. He was arrested and his child was taken away. The court thought the family was in danger from him. Termination of legal rights for both parents was the response, when the wife took the children to see the father, which was against the court case. The jury said that for the children’s best interest, terminating the parent children relationship was needed. The father was found not guilty- but the children were taken away. The children were taken by their foster parents and converted to Christianity. Civil LitigationShould culture influence the size of the damage of the award? Example: Grover Marks caseGypsy/ Roma community; police did a search of the gypsy community and touched the women. The gypsy women were defiled and because of that, the gypsy community filed a lawsuit againstthe police department. The argument was because the girls were touched, they can never get married. The police had a warrant to search the home but used the warrant half an hour before it was valid. It was a technically but it wasn’t a legal search. Should the damages be forty million dollars? it was a must smaller amount of money that was settled. Gadae- non gypsies, some basis for thinking that the gypsies might have stolen something but how the police treated themwas humiliating. When non gypsies touched gypsy women, they are defiled. Concept of Marime or defilementPeople sue because of an unauthorized autopsy. Some religions don’t think the dead should be cut because you will appear in the afterlife how you are. If the coroner or the medical examiner conducts an autopsy on someone who died, someone can sue. The idea is that certain religions have more damage on an unauthorized autopsy as opposed to just regular people. Exemptions1. Food safetya. Peking style duck- health people said it was a health threat; when the Chinese restaurants were under attack, the Congressman and lawyers got an exemption that the Peking duck can be kept at the certain temperature it was held at because it wasn’t a health threatb. Korean rice cakes- if it is refrigerated, Assemblywoman Karen Wu sponsored a law to create exemption for the rice cakes. 2. Ritual slaughter- statutory exemptions that allow religious leaders to kill animals with a sharp knife so that members of the congress members can eat the meet. People have trouble with religious slaughter, as it is cruela. Kosher/glattb. HalalArguments for and against taking culture into accountWhat cultures get to make the claim? General Legal principlesEqual protectionRight to a fair trialReligious libertyFreedom of association/speechInternational LawRight to culture is a human rightArticle 27, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: In those states in which ethnic, religious, or linguistic minorities exist, persons belonging to suchminorities shall not be denied the right, in community with the other members of their group, to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practice their own religion, or to use their own language. Arguments AgainstMisrepresentation/fraudViolation of other human rights- women and childrenequality requires identical treatmentsTheoretical IssuesWho can invoke cultural rights? Indian MascotsHarjo trademark litigation over the Washington “Redskins” Trademark Trial and Appeal BoardTrademarks that are “disparaging” or bring a group into “contempt or disrepute” can be cancelled. Something that was disparaging or offensive to a cultural group could be cancelled. Lalsis- is it appropriate to allow teens to use images that are offensive or caricatures? Should freedom of speech be allowed? Should hate speech be limited? The Supreme Court denied to hear the case- but people speculated that the Supreme Court would have ruled against the Native Americans“The Chief” Chief Illiniwek dispute- University of IllinoisIs the Chief an “invented tradition”? Honoring Native AmericansArguments for and against retaining the mascotThe State of Illinois made a law to make the image a permanent mascot. In reaction, some of the competitions wouldn’t play for the University of Illinois. This was affecting their ability to compete. The critique of the image is that is that a proper, appropriation of the image. The college says they love and appreciate the chief, using the image to honor Native Americans. Native Americans who are opposed of this argue this is a misappropriation of their culture and shouldn’t be using images that are so offensive to native Americans. Crazy HorseTasunke Witko, or Crazy HorseCan you use a prominent warrior to see a product?Grandson, Seth Big Crow, challenged Gough and other malt liquor companies. He brought lawsuit against them to try to get them not to use Crazy Horse to sell products.There was an attempt by Congress in 1992 to disallow the use of “Crazy Horse” but the federal court overturned the statue on first amendment grounds. The grandson filed the court in Sioux tribal court, but federal courts said that federal courts had jurisdictionBoycottFederal court invalidated the statute barring use of “Crazy Horse” Plants and “Biopiracy” Attempts to steal knowledge about a plant from another group“Da Vine” man applied for a patent over this vineAmazonian vine, Banisteriopsis caapi, also known as ayahuascaLoren Miller’s application for a patentCORCA- coordinating body of the Amazon, gave permission to this but the tribes rejected it and that they shouldn’t have to recognize Miller’s proprietary rights over this plant that had been used for hundreds of years.Because of the challenge filed by the coalition, the office said there was substantial questions about patent ability. The US Patent and Trademark Office found that the