

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

Many migrant workers in South
Korea are beaten, trafficked for sexual exploitation, and denied wages
for long periods of time, despite the introduction of rules to protect
their rights, said Amnesty International in a report issued today.
Many migrant workers in South
Korea are beaten, trafficked for sexual exploitation, and denied wages
for long periods of time, despite the introduction of rules to protect
their rights, said Amnesty International in a report issued today.
In the 98-page report, Disposable Labor:
Rights of Migrant Workers in South Korea, Amnesty International documents
the dangerous and unjust working conditions that many migrant workers are
forced into. According to the report, migrant workers often operate heavy
machinery and handle dangerous chemicals without receiving sufficient training
or protective equipment. As a result, they are at greater risk of industrial
accidents, including fatalities. To make matters worse, they often receive
less pay compared to native South Korean workers.
"Migrant workers are vulnerable to abuse
and exploitation largely because they cannot change jobs without their
employer's permission," said Roseann Rife, deputy director of Amnesty
International's Asia-Pacific program. "Work conditions are sometimes
so bad that they run away and, consequently, lose their regular status
and are then subject to arrest and deportation."
South Korea was one of the first Asian countries
to legally recognize the rights of migrant workers with the Employment
Permit System (EPS), which was meant to better protect the rights of migrant
workers. This granted them the same status as Korean workers, with equal
labor rights, pay, and benefits.
However, five years after its implementation,
many continue to face hardships and abuse.
In September 2008, there were an estimated
220,000 irregular migrant workers in the country.
The government of South Korea pledged to
halve this number by 2012, launching a massive and sometimes violent crackdown
on migrant workers. Immigration officers and the police are accused on
occasion of using excessive force against migrant workers and operating
outside the law.
Disposable Labor documents how the
South Korean government has not sufficiently monitored workplaces, with
high numbers of accidents, inadequate medical treatment and compensation,
and unfair dismissals.
Amnesty International interviewed migrant
workers who described how their employers forced them to work long hours
and night shifts, without overtime pay. The employers would often withhold
their wages as well.
"Despite the advances of the EPS, the cycle
of abuse and mistreatment continues as thousands of migrant workers
find themselves at the mercy of employers and the authorities who mistreat
them knowing their victims have few legal rights and are unable to access
justice or seek compensation for the abuse," said Rife.
Amnesty International's research shows that
women are at particular risk of abuse. Several female workers recruited
as singers in US military camp towns have been trafficked into sexual exploitation,
including the sex industry, by their employers and managers.
Amnesty International spoke to trafficked
women who said they had no choice but to remain in their jobs because they
were in debt to their employer and did not know where to turn for help.
If the women ran away, they risked losing their legal status and
being subject to deportation.
"These women are double victims," said
Rife. "First they are trafficked and then they become "illegal" migrants
under South Korean law when they attempt to escape from their exploitative
situation."
Amnesty International calls on the government
of South Korea:
* To
ensure that employers respect, protect and promote the rights of migrant
workers through rigorous labor inspections, so that the workplace is safe,
training is provided and migrant workers are paid fairly and on time.
Background:
Disposable Labor contains the testimony
of 60 migrant workers along with staff from shelters, migrant centers,
NGOs, factory workers and managers, piecing together evidence of an exploitative
system that fails to uphold individual human rights. Interviews were carried
out in 11 cities throughout the country.
Case studies:
KN, a 34-year-old Sri Lankan male migrant
worker, worked at a factory making shipping parts in Jinae, South Gyeongsang
province. When a 150kg metal pipe fell on him, he broke five toes
and two fingers. Although he needed to be hospitalized for two months,
his employer came to the hospital after 12 days and threatened to fire
him if he did not return to work. He did not even give KN time to
change out of his hospital clothes. Living on the second floor, KN
had difficulty getting around because there were no lifts. His leg
hurt so much that he could barely stand. Infuriated with KN, his
employer dragged KN to the immigration office where he cancelled his work
visa.
FJ, a 37-year-old Filipino female migrant
worker, was recruited as a singer but was trafficked into sexual exploitation
at a nightclub in Dongducheon, Gyeonggi province. During her first
week, her employer brought his friends to the nightclub and locked her
and another woman in a room with them and left. His friends demanded
to have sex with the women but they refused. When FJ later complained
to her employer, he just yelled at her and threatened to send her back
to the Philippines.
Amnesty International is a Nobel Peace Prize-winning
grassroots activist organization with more than 2.2 million supporters,
activists and volunteers in more than 150 countries campaigning for human
rights worldwide. The organization investigates and exposes abuses, educates
and mobilizes the public, and works to protect people wherever justice,
freedom, truth and dignity are denied.
# # #
To receive the full report, Disposable
Labor: Rights of Migrant Workers in South Korea, please e-mail media@aiusa.org.
For more information, please visit: www.amnestyusa.org
Amnesty International is a global movement of millions of people demanding human rights for all people - no matter who they are or where they are. We are the world's largest grassroots human rights organization.
(212) 807-8400"This is our God: Jesus, King of Peace, who rejects war, whom no one can use to justify war."
Pope Leo XIV used his Palm Sunday sermon to take what appears to be a shot at US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.
In his sermon, excerpts of which he published on social media, the pope emphasized Christian teachings against violence while criticizing anyone who would invoke Jesus Christ to justify a war.
"This is our God: Jesus, King of Peace, who rejects war, whom no one can use to justify war," Pope Leo said. "He does not listen to the prayers of those who wage war, but rejects them."
The pope also encouraged followers to "raise our prayers to the Prince of Peace so that he may support people wounded by war and open concrete paths of reconciliation and peace."
While speaking at the Pentagon last week, Hegseth directly invoked Jesus when discussing the Trump administration's unprovoked and unconstitutional war with Iran.
Specifically, Hegseth offered up a prayer in which he asked God to give US soldiers "wisdom in every decision, endurance for the trial ahead, unbreakable unity, and overwhelming violence of action against those who deserve no mercy," adding that "we ask these things with bold confidence in the mighty and powerful name of Jesus Christ."
Mother Jones contributing writer Alex Nguyen described the pope's sermon as a "rebuke" of Hegseth, whom he noted "has been open about his support for a Christian crusade" in the Middle East.
Pope Leo is not the only Catholic leader speaking against using Christian faith to justify wars of aggression. Two weeks ago, Cardinal Pierbattista Pizzaballa, the Latin patriarch of Jerusalem, said "the abuse and manipulation of God’s name to justify this and any other war is the gravest sin we can commit at this time."
“War is first and foremost political and has very material interests, like most wars," Cardinal Pizzaballa added.
"Trump’s problem is that whatever the claims he might make about the damage to Iran’s nuclear and military capacity, which is substantial, the regime survives, the international economy has been severely disrupted, and the bills keep on coming in."
President Donald Trump is reportedly preparing to launch some kind of ground assault on Iran in the coming weeks, but one prominent military strategy expert believes he's heading straight for defeat.
The Washington Post on Saturday reported that the Pentagon is preparing for "weeks" of ground operations in Iran, which for the last month has disrupted global energy markets by shutting down the Strait of Hormuz in response to aerial assaults by the US and Israel.
The Post's sources revealed that "any potential ground operation would fall short of a full-scale invasion and could instead involve raids by a mixture of Special Operations forces and conventional infantry troops" that could be used to seize Kharg Island, a key Iranian oil export hub, or to search out and destroy weapons systems that could be used by the Iranians to target ships along the strait.
Michael Eisenstadt, director of the Military and Security Studies Program at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, told the Post that taking over Kharg Island would be a highly risky operation for American troops, even if initially successful.
“I just wouldn’t want to be in that small place with Iran’s ability to rain down drones and maybe artillery,” said Eisenstadt.
Eisenstadt's analysis was echoed by Ret. Gen. Joseph Votel, former head of US Central Command, who told ABC News that seizing and occupying Kharg Island would put US troops in a state of constant danger, warning they could be "very, very vulnerable" to drones and missiles launched from the shore.
Lawrence Freedman, professor emeritus of war studies at King's College London, believes that the president has already checkmated himself regardless of what shape any ground operation takes.
In an analysis published Sunday, Freedman declared Trump had run "out of options" for victory, as there have been no signs of the Iranian regime crumbling due to US-Israeli attacks.
Freedman wrote that Trump now "appears to inhabit an alternative reality," noting that "his utterances have become increasingly incoherent, with contradictory statements following quickly one after the other, and frankly delusional claims."
Trump's loan real option at this point, Freedman continued, would to simply declare that he had achieved an unprecedented victory and just walk away. But even in that case, wrote Freedman, "this would mean leaving behind a mess in the Gulf" with no guarantee that Iran would re-open the Strait of Hormuz.
"Success in war is judged not by damage caused but by political objectives realized," Freedman wrote in his conclusion. "Here the objective was regime change, or at least the emergence of a new compliant leader... Trump’s problem is that whatever the claims he might make about the damage to Iran’s nuclear and military capacity, which is substantial, the regime survives, the international economy has been severely disrupted, and the bills keep on coming in."
"The NY Times saves its harshest skepticism for progressives," said one critic.
The New York Times is drawing criticism for publishing articles that downplayed the significance of Saturday's No Kings protests, which initial estimates suggest was the largest protest event in US history.
In a Times article that drew particular ire, reporter Jeremy Peters questioned whether nationwide events that drew an estimated 8 million people to the streets "would be enough to influence the course of the nation’s politics."
"Can the protests harness that energy and turn it into victories in the November midterm elections?" Peters asked rhetorically. "How can they avoid a primal scream that fades into a whimper?"
Journalist and author Mark Harris called Peters' take on the protests "predictable" and said it was framed so that the protests would appear insignificant no matter how many people turned out.
"There's a long, bad journalistic tradition," noted Harris. "All conservative grass-roots political movements are fascinating heartland phenomena, all progressive grass-roots political movements are ineffectual bleating. This one is written off as powered by white female college grads—the wine-moms slur, basically."
Media critic Dan Froomkin was event blunter in his criticism of the Peters piece.
"Putting anti-woke hack Jeremy Peters on this story is an act of war by the NYT against No Kings," he wrote.
Mark Jacob, former metro editor at the Chicago Tribune, also took a hatchet to Peters' analysis.
"The NY Times saves its harshest skepticism for progressives," he wrote. "Instead of being impressed by 3,000-plus coordinated protests, NYT dismisses the value of 'hitting a number' and asks if No Kings will be 'a primal scream that fades into a whimper.' F off, NY Times. We'll defeat fascism without you."
The Media and Democracy Project slammed the Times for putting Peters' analysis of the protests on its front page while burying straight news coverage of the events on page A18.
"NYT editors CHOSE that Jeremy Peters's opinions would frame the No Kings demonstrations and pro-democracy movement to millions of NYT readers," the group commented.
Joe Adalian, west coast editor for New York Mag's Vulture, criticized a Times report on the No Kings demonstrations that quoted a "skeptic" of the protests without noting that said skeptic was the chairman of the Ole Miss College Republicans.
"Of course, the Times doesn’t ID him as such," remarked Adalian. "He's just a Concerned Youth."
Jeff Jarvis, professor emeritus at the CUNY Graduate School of Journalism, took issue with a Times piece that offered five "takeaways" from the No Kings events that somehow managed to miss their broader significance.
"I despise the five-takeaways journalistic trope the Broken Times loves so," Jarvis wrote. "It is reductionist, hubristic in its claim to summarize any complex event. This one leaves out much, like the defense of democracy against fascism."
Journalist Miranda Spencer took stock of the Times' entire coverage of the No Kings demonstrations and declared it "clueless," while noting that USA Today did a far better job of communicating their significance to readers.
Harper's Magazine contributing editor Scott Horton similarly argued that international news organizations were giving the No Kings events more substantive coverage than the Times.
"In Le Monde and dozens of serious newspapers around the world, prominent coverage of No Kings 3, which brought millions of Americans on to the streets to protest Trump," Horton observed. "In NYT, an illiterate rant from Jeremy W Peters and no meaningful coverage of the protests. Something very strange going on here."