In this post I'm going to take the time to write about one of my idols, Aung San Suu Kyi. She is a polotician and a human rights activist in Burma/Myanmar where she lives, seperate from her family.
Both of her parents were influential political figures, her father was even involved in negotiating Burmese independence from the British Empire in 1947. After he was assasinated by his rivals, her mother became Ambassador to India and Nepal. Aung San Suu Kyi was educated in an a Methodist English High School and finished her education in Oxford University, England, where she studied Philosophy, Polotics and Economics. She worked for the UN for a while before returning to school to get a PhD in School of Oriental and African Studies, London.
In 1988 she returned to Burma to care for her mother who had taken ill. As she was there, she got wrapped up in pro-democracy demonstrations and became the leader of the pro-democracy movemnts.
If the Military Junta had not taken power that same year, it is said that she would have become prime minister as her anti-violence philosophey and powerful personality had rallied people around her.
The new military regime was not a fan, however. They placed Aung San Suu Kyi under house arrestb where she was cut off from her family and from her people. Even when her husband was diagnosed with cancer, he was not allowed to come into the country. She was told that she could leave Burma to see him but she knew that if she left, she would never be allowed back in so she made the huge sacrifce of staying behind to fight for her people. The last time she saw the man she loved was christmas, 1995.
She wasn't released until after the 2010 elections in which the military junta 'won'.
These days she is free and fighting to win freedom for her people. She is an inspirational figure for so many, including myself, becasue of her strength and her compassion.
However, the reason I am writing about her on this blog is becasue she is a politician who was stopped from represtention her people and herself just becasue she lived in Burma. Something like that would probably not happen in Austarlia. The truth is that the Freedom of Speech clause in the Decleration of Human Rights is not held in the same esteem depending on where you live in the world. Aung San Suu Kyi was not intitled to an opinion, simpley because of where she was born and where she chose to live.
The Geography of Human Rights is very interesting and Aung San Suu Kyi is very aware of that - so she is trying to make life better for the people in her country, before she moves on to the globe. And that is a philosphy we should all have. Help your own people before you try and heal the world.

Aung San Suu Kyi Amnesty Birthday Message from Amnesty International on Vimeo.

Act 3 of the Universal Decleration Of Human Rights states:

• Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

It is against the law in all countries to take the life of another human being.

There are severe punishments for anyone who kills another person.

And yet, in an act of supreme hypocrisy, fifty eight countries still have the death penalty as a punishment for crime. In many of these counrties, the crime doesn't even have to be that severe, and the form of execution can be horribely inhumane. For example, in Iran, a woman can be stoned to death simpley for trying to run away from her abusive husband. In constrast, if an Irish woman were to run away from her abusive husband, the man could be arrested for his violent behaviour and the woman would be welcomed with open arms by all of society.

The Death Penalty always has and always will be one of those issues that split the house. On one hand, you could argue that if someone had murdered multipul people and was likely to murder again, then it was safer for the general public to take the life of the murderer.

And yet, the other side of the spectrum is that it is so difficult to be completely sure of the guilt of a criminal. At least if they are kept in prison, if they are proven to be innocent after some time then they can be freed. If they had been sentenced to death, the state would have the blood of an innocent on their hands.

There is a very recent case of a man sentenced to death with a large cloud of doubt over his head. Troy Davis sat on death row for eighteen years in the state of Georgia for killing a police officer. At the time, nine people testified against him but since then, seven of those people have retracted or changed their statement. People even came forward identifying a new suspect but the court didn't listen. Troy Davis was exceuted on the 21st September 2011 even though there was no physical evidence linking him to the crime and even the witnesses evidence had fallen through.

But innocence isn't the only issue - not all methods of excectution are fair, or humane. In Iraq, when the authorities execute someone by fireing squad, they send the bill of the bullet to the dead man's family. In Belaraus - the only Europian country that still has the death penalty - they often kill the person before even telling the family about the death sentence.

The biggest question for me regarding the death penalty is about the family of the convicted. Yes, in a murder case, the victims family will want revenge but what about the other side of the penny? Why should the innocent family members be forced to suffer for an action they had nothing to do with? The reality is that when you sentence someone to death, you are plunging yet another family into mourning and grief.

What I am interested in is the geogaphy of it all. I'm curious as to why people in certain places can have their arm cut off for stealing when in other places, people who get caught commit the same crime only get a reprimand and are fereted off home. That is what I intend to explore with this blog posts and maybe it will bering me to some interesting conlusions.

Amnesty International "death penalty" director's cut (PLEIX) from pleix on Vimeo.

In Iran, if a woman disobeys her husband, he can have her buried up to her neck in dirt then have stones throne at her until she is dead.
In the USA, there are more states that will let you marry your cousin than there are that will let you marry your same-sex partner.
In China, couples are only allowed one child - if they have more, they have to pay heavy taxes.

The Declaration of Human Rights states that all human beings are equal. And yet, depending on where you live, there are people more or less equal than you are. These inconsistencies and abberations are brushed off with the simple phrase 'it's just a difference in culture' but these 'differences' can have devastating effects on real people. They mean that a thirteen year old girl has to marry a stranger just because she lives in India. It means that a young man has the right to vote for whomever he likes rather than submit to violent intimidation just because he lives in the UK.
What I intend to do with this blog is talk about some of the hypocracies and injustices of the human globe. My hope is to spread awareness of some of the bigger issues and maybe some day one of my posts will make a difference to someones life.
With you're support, we could help move the world closer to having equality for all.