Andrew Mounier

Andrew Mounier is a passionate member of the End Ecocide movement, an avid legal blogger and Environmental Law Student. He has worked in marketing for over a decade and finds his passion in bringing concepts to life. As a Socialpreneur, he is an agent for positive social change through both his writing and business endeavors.
One year after Newtown

One Year After Newtown: Guns & Children

One year after Newtown

Letting Go

In the days and weeks immediately after the December 14, 2012 tragedy at Sandy Hook  Elementary School when 20 elementary school children and 6 adults were killed by a gunman, cries for stiffer gun control laws reached a fever pitch.  The screams to leave gun laws alone or even to relax them were just as loud.  Seemingly everyone had an opinion from the President, to politicians on both sides of the aisle, to gun lobby groups, to gun control advocacy groups, to parents of Sandy Hook victims, to other moms and dads.  Even children weighed in on the issue.  It is now a little over a year since the shooting.  Sandy Hook is no longer regularly making national headlines.  Sound bites from the National Rifle Association no longer top the evening news.  It seems as if little has changed in the last 12 months.  Or has it?

Changes in State Law

While Congress did not make any changes to gun control laws, state legislatures did.  In the year since Sandy Hook, over 114 measures were passed that affected state gun laws.

Strengthening Gun Control

Eleven states, plus the District of Columbia passed laws that strengthened gun control.  Two states made it harder to carry guns in public.  Eighteen states and the District of Columbia passed laws that made it easier for the government to track guns.  For example, Maryland and New York now require that lost or stolen firearms be reported, and Rhode Island makes it illegal to tamper with identification marks on firearms.  Fifteen states strengthened mental health restrictions related to gun ownership.   California, for example, now requires psychotherapists whose patients threaten violence to report the threats, and Colorado requires that mental health records be reported to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.

Weakening Gun Control

Twenty-nine states passed laws that made it easier for people to own guns and carry them in public places such as schools, bars, and casinos.  Twenty-six states added laws that strengthened the ability to carry concealed firearms in public.   Seven states now allow guns to be carried in schools.  For example, Alabama now allows school security personnel and resource officers to carry firearms, and Oklahoma allows handguns in private schools and on private school buses.  Alabama, Alaska, Kansas and Missouri all passed laws that prohibited state officials from enforcing certain aspects of federal gun control laws or nullified federal gun control laws.

A Kansas city personal injury attorney remarks that clearly most people believe that the gun violence in the United States needs to stop.  No one wants even one more child injury from gun violence.  No one wants a repeat of the shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School, Columbine High School, the Aurora, Colorado movie theater, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, or the Tucson, Arizona Safeway.  However, people disagree on the most effective way to stop the gun violence.  Some believe that fewer guns in society will result in fewer shootings.  Others believe that more guns in the hands of lawful citizens will result in fewer gun deaths by criminals.  What types of policies do you believe will have a meaningful affect on gun violence in the United States?

Military Women Objectified

The Military’s Sexual-Assault Laws: Friendly Fire

Military Women ObjectifiedIn recent years several high-profile military sexual assault cases have left the military open to criticism.  Furthermore, the government has released troubling data on the frequency of military sexual assaults.  According to the Department of Labor 20-48% of female veterans have been sexually assaulted and 80% have been sexually harassed.  Critics are not just disappointed that the assaults occurred.  Critics are disappointed, surprised and angered as to how such cases have been handled by the military justice system.  As a result, several members of Congress have proposed changes in the way the military handles accusations of sexual assault.  The goal is to both reduce the number of sexual assaults and to ensure that both the accuser and accused are treated fairly when there is an accusation of sexual assault.

Current Law

Currently, military law gives a commander a tremendous amount of authority over the course of action when there is an accusation of sexual assault.  Indeed, the commander decides whether or not to refer the case to the military prosecutor or not.  The commander can even have convictions dismissed.  For example, earlier this year Air Force Lt. Gen. Craig Franklin overturned the sexual-assault conviction of Lt. Col. James Wilkerson, who like Franklin is a fighter pilot. In the relatively small military world it is not uncommon for the commander to know and even be friends with the accused.  Sadly, the commander is sometimes the accused rapist.  As a consequence victims are often reluctant to report assaults  and reported assaults are sometimes not fully investigated.   Accusers have been the subject of harassment and retaliation.

A Macon personal injury lawyer notes that the way the military handles sexual assault cases and other crimes is very different from how such cases are handled in the civilian world.  In a civilian case, typically the accuser informs either the police or a prosecutor of the attack.  If an investigation uncovers sufficient evidence of an assault the accused is arrested and criminally charged.  A criminal trial is held and a jury determines the fate of the defendant based on evidence presented by both the prosecution and the defense.  During this process steps are taken to shield the identity of the accuser from the public and to ensure that the accuser is not victimized or demonized.  In cases where there is not sufficient evidence to prosecute (or even where there is a prosecution), the victim has the option of pursuing a personal injury case against the perpetrator.

Proposed Changes

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., proposes an amendment that would remove sexual-assault cases from the usual military chain of command.  Thus, only military prosecutors would have the authority to investigate and prosecute military sexual assault cases.  Military commanders would also be stripped of their authority to dismiss court-martial convictions in cases of rape, sexual assault and other crimes.  Furthermore, Gillibrand’s proposal would make it a crime to retaliate against a victim for reporting being attacked. This proposal is sharply opposed by the Pentagon and does not generally have strong support in Congress.

Senators Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) offers a competing proposal on the issue of military sexual assault cases that appears to be more palatable to both the Pentagon and members of Congress. McCaskill’s proposal would also strip commanders of their authority to dismiss court-martial rape and sexual assault convictions. It too would  make it a crime to retaliate against a victim for reporting an attack. The significant difference between McCaskill’s proposal and Gillibrand’s proposal is that McCaskill’s proposal leaves authority and accountability within the current military chain of command.  Both proposals, however, recognize that a change is necessary to protect victims.

In addition to the legal aspects related to investigating and prosecuting sexual assault cases, there are psychological nuances that make such cases best handled by those with specialized training and experience.  In what way if any should a “specialist” be involved in the investigation or prosecution of military sexual assault cases?

modern day slavery

Modern Slavery in Quatar: Wrongful Death

When it was announced that Qatar would be hosting the 2022 FIFA World Cup, it seemed like a great victory for the Middle East. Qatar would be the first Arab State to run a World Cup. However, shortly after Qatar won their bid, controversy surrounding the country’s extremely high temperature climate during the summer and their laws banning alcohol and homosexuality began to arise in the media. While efforts are being made to make sure all the players feel welcome and accommodated in the country, Qatar’s also coming under fire for their unethical use of migrant workers for the construction of stadiums, roads, hotels, and other buildings relating to the World Cup infrastructure. The conditions for these workers are so harsh, Qatari Government has been accused of engaging in “Modern slavery.”

Modern Day Slavery

Under the frequently criticized Kafala system, migrant workers from mostly Nepal (but also other countries in the Middle East) are legally at the mercy of their employers. This means that, in Qatar, it is very easy for an employer to mistreat its migrant worker without any legal repercussions. According to the Guardian, these various mistreatments have led to, on average, one wrongful death a day over the last summer, mostly due to heart attacks, heart failure and on-site “accidents.” These deaths are caused by poor and cramped living conditions, little to no food or even water, working on an empty stomach, and dangerous work environments. Many of these Nepalese workers relocated to Qatar for work and a better life…unfortunately the promise was not the reality. Even if they wanted to, many of these migrant workers cannot leave because many employers (their “in-country sponsors” under Kafala) are either withholding their pay to discourage them from running away or refusing them the visas that would allow them to leave the country.

In America, if a worker is personally injured on site, they are legally guaranteed some form of compensation. Unfortunately for these Nepalese migrant workers in Qatar, they are not granted that right. In fact, many of these migrant workers’ identifications and passports are confiscated, essentially turning them into illegal aliens.

Bringing the Issue to Light

The British newspaper The Guardian was one of the first presses to really bring this unethical practice to light, writing, “The overall picture is of one of the richest nations exploiting one of the poorest to get ready for the world’s most popular sporting tournament.” The Human Rights Watch, an international human rights organization, has similarly referred the Qatar Kafala as being exploitative in a 146 page report released back in June 2012. Sepp Blatter, the president of FIFA who in the past championed hard for Qatar, admitted that choosing the country was probably a “mistake.” Even the Nepalese Ambassador to Qatar Maya Kumari Sharma has referred to the situation as an “open jail for migrant workers.” Although the shady recruitment brokers that allow these men to work in Qatar without any regard for their safety should also take some of the blame.

Although the World Cup is still nine years away, the Qatar 2022 Supreme Committee still doesn’t seem very proactive in solving the problem; and hard labor still seems to be the norm in Qatar. However, with international pressure increasing, the Qatari government may have no choice but to look into this matter deeply. What do you think should be done? Should the World Cup venue be changed?