Rationalism & Individualism in an Irrational World - Refugee & SOGI Context
Human rights, at their core, are those rights and freedoms all humans give to each other, by virtue of being human. Even though the UDHR defines them as indivisible, universal and inalienable, it is vital to remember in this context that human rights are essentially rules and norms for human interaction.
Individualism is the moral stance, political philosophy, ideology, and social outlook that emphasises the individual's moral worth (Wood, 1972). Furthermore, as Depaigne (2005) explains, the foundation of Individualism is the "struggle for recognition which should lead to the recognition of the individual's rights and the rise of local cultural identities".
Individualism in a Sexual Orientation Gender Identity (SOGI) and Refugee context, centres on the approval and movement away from the inherent reliance on binary categories of "male" and "female" which appear "deeply embedded in human rights discourse" (MacArthur, 2015, p. 27). These entrenched categories present several issues and barriers for human rights advocates to break down in their attempts at creating a greater understanding and recognition that sexual orientation and gender are closely intertwined.
However, as the world understands a more significant concept of what it is to be human, so too does the fightback against Individualism from certain groups, fixated on the hardness of societal gender structures that influence refugees and their asylum applications (MacArthur, 2015). Furthermore, the liberal concept of Individualism and the intangible concept of human rights are deemed to be explicitly western and foreign to non-western societies, "where the community is often set before the individual" (Brems, 1997, p. 145).
There will therefore be those who argue against the inclusion of SOGI rights in a human rights framework. They will point to these concepts whilst outlining that SOGI rights can be viewed as Western imperialism (Depaigne, 2005). Whilst the years of Western oppression of low to middle-income countries (LMIC) do not bode well for the introduction of new ideals by the West. Here discussion around SOGI-related rights as an instrument of struggle is decisive in its own right and communicates to the broader question of how human rights can uphold their impacts amid global political currents in the future (Chase, 2016).
Future advancement of SOGI rights both within a state and in an International Refugee context is crucial because it speaks to the rise in empowering individuals within a collective without disempowering another group. Furthermore, as Depaigne (2005) highlights, it speaks to the human rights framework by calling upon its constituents to allow moral compasses and rational thought to dictate the future of rights for all human beings.
As Schlanbusch (2013) explains, even though the rejection of SOGI rights is frequently portrayed as a defence of nationalism, rationalism is the notion that humans are capable of reason and logic. Rationalism itself is not an ideology of the West. It is, therefore, possible to argue for the universality of rationalism to protect the fundamental rights of individuals worldwide.
(Photo by Markus Spiske on Unsplash)
Chase, A. T. (2016). Human rights contestations: sexual orientation and gender identity. The
International Journal of Human Rights, 20(6), 703-723.
Depaigne, V. (2005). Individualism, Human Rights And Identity. Semantic Scholar.
MacArthur, G. (2015). Securing Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Rights within the United Nations Framework and System: Past, Present and Future. Equal Rights Review, 15, 25-54.
Schlanbusch, M. D. (2013). Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Rights in the Universal Periodic Review. In: Master in Human Rights Practice, University of Gothenburg,
Wood, E. M. (1972). Mind and politics: An approach to the meaning of liberal and socialist individualism: Univ of California Press.
Data Extraction, Refugees and Human Rights Violations
The threat of data extraction fails to respect the intersection of gender, sexuality, disability, and home state laws for refugees in asylum seeker applications.
Data extraction that leads to the direct violation of privacy rights is a critical issue of technosolutionism. Data extraction in this context is defined as "the process of removing something, especially by force" (Cambridge Dictionary, 2020). Whilst data collection is a neutral, mutual accumulation of data (Sadowski, 2019).
In this circumstance, several companies are posing as saviours to the issues facing states concerning refugees. One of these companies is Cellebrite, which markets its ability to audit a "person's journey to identify suspicious activity prior to arrival", track their route, run a keyword and image search through their device to identify "traces of illicit activity", and review their online browsing and social media activity (Privacy International, 2019).
The threat of data extraction in this context fails to respect the intersection of gender, sexuality, disability, and home state laws in asylum applications. For example, if a homosexual man applies for asylum with home state laws criminalizing homosexuality, and his phone data is extracted, not only has his right to privacy been violated, but if his application is denied, his life is at severe risk on returning home.
Although one could argue that privacy is difficult to define in a legal context due to roots in cultural traditions and fluctuating social and political norms (Klitou, 2014). The UDHR and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) (UN General Assembly, 1969) are two mechanisms that reinforce the right to privacy. Article 12 of the UDHR defines privacy as individual autonomy and identifies the right to demand protection of the law against arbitrary interference of privacy. Article 17 of the ICCPR builds on this UDHR language and comprises a broader concept of obligations to protect privacy against interference and attacks from the government and others, without a limitation clause. (Kaurin, 2019).
There are therefore solid international documents reinforcing the need to maintain privacy in a humanitarian context. These instruments have been created following substantial deliberation to protect these exact rights abuses with vulnerable individuals applying for asylum. Data extraction must never be allowed to occur for technology to help, not hinder the human rights discourse.
Photo by Markus Spiske on Unsplash
What is Technosolutionism in Human Rights?
Technosolutionism is a way of grasping how the world prioritises and values engineered solutions to human problems. It is the theory that a machine, software program or mobile phone application can improve the way something is performed. Typically, this improvement is quantified through speed, as it matches the unsavoury need the Western world has for development
Technosolutionism is a way of grasping how the world prioritises and values engineered solutions to human problems. It is the theory that a machine, software program or mobile phone application can improve the way something is performed. Typically, this improvement is quantified through speed, as it matches the unsavoury need the Western world has for development. However, with the rush to embrace immediate technological fixes comes new human rights violations (Mattix, 2021). These are viewed as unfortunate side effects by creators of technology, ignored by the end-user and justified by the ultimate problem sped up and solved.
Furthermore, there is an ideology of competition with modern technology that parallels the neoliberalist agendas of Western civilisation. This ultimately leads to architects of technology releasing a product quicker than their opponent, negating that it may not be finished or fully assessed by the end-user. With this comes the belief that technical issues and human rights violations can be patched on the run.
There are two other important issues to consider in the invention of technology. Firstly, there seems to be a belief that repairing problems with technology will lead to a finish line, where all the world's dilemmas are solved. The Western world overlooks the need for comprehensive assessments of how technology influences the human rights discourse. Without this understanding develops an inherent risk of creating new human rights violations that need to be solved by yet another solution.
Furthermore, technology is skewed on the biases that create it. Silicon Valley is a long way from the heart of where most refugees come from, and its confidence outweighs its capability to solve issues it does not completely understand. This has been identified by several scholars and activists who have outlined that there is "tremendous denial on the part of Silicon Valley elites and governments to acknowledge and act upon the myriad social harms that emanate from their products and services" (UCLA Center for Critical Internet Inquiry, 2020, p. 5).
A prime example is in the documentary Coded Bias by Kantayya (2020). Here Kantayya outlines that artificial intelligence features such as facial recognition services are "based on data, and data is a reflection of our history". This statement is made following the detection of systemic failures in this software to identify physical features based on the racial bias from data input during the creation phase, and further explains how machine learning algorithms utilised in the asylum seeker application process can perpetuate society's existing racial, class and gender-based inequalities.
With a frightening reminder that technology is not neutral, it embodies the assumptions and prejudices of those who build it.
Photo by ThisisEngineering RAEng on Unsplash
The Pitfalls of Technosolutionism and Refugee Rights
The rationale for the consideration of technosolutionism for refugees is the growing trend of digitalisation across the world and the numerous obstacles it could help solve. It profoundly changes the context and execution of humanitarian assistance and how refugees are processed (Stoll, 2017). However, the UCLA Center for Critical Internet Inquiry (2020) outlines that two distinct groups are at considerable risk of cruelty from racial discrimination exacerbated by the use of new technologies: those in the criminal justice system and refugees.
Landing on the coast of Kos, Greece, a Syrian refugee accompanied by his wife from the war-torn city of Homs withdrew his mobile phone from a resealable plastic bag and proclaimed,
"Our phones are more important than food!"
- Wael, Syria (Assir, 2015, p. 1)
Unfortunately, the same devices refugees use to navigate, translate, educate and communicate during their journeys are utilised by governments and private sector actors as powerful instruments of surveillance, exploited to shape human beings into digital evidence (Taylor & Graham-Harrison, 2016).
The rationale for the consideration of technosolutionism for refugees is the growing trend of digitalisation across the world and the numerous obstacles it could help solve. It profoundly changes the context and execution of humanitarian assistance and how refugees are processed (Stoll, 2017). However, the UCLA Center for Critical Internet Inquiry (2020) outlines that two distinct groups are at considerable risk of cruelty from racial discrimination exacerbated by the use of new technologies: those in the criminal justice system and refugees.
In this framework, both groups are exceedingly vulnerable to the detection and creation of evidence against them. The concept of digital evidence is critical in this analysis of technosolutionism. Oldham (2020) defines digital evidence as anything that the senses can perceive to support an assertion (Oldham, 2020). Although assertion can be both positive and negative in its hypothesis, the assertion often comes from the individual defining it and in first-order logic.
Its relationship to refugee rights is simple. All refugees claiming asylum worldwide are automatically judged and branded by immigration officials with the assertion and assumption that they are lying, and the evidence will prove that. If it just so happens that the evidence disproves this assertion. Well, that might be just luck on the side of the refugee.
Technology that helps accelerate the process of asylum applications does so on a mathematical agenda, which prevents the analysis of a case-by-case basis. Instead, it turns the application process into a judgmental, biased calculation formulated by technology that carries the same racial, gender and class-based inequalities as society. These calculations are not neutral and are based purely on omnipotent Western governments and their determination of merit. Furthermore, with modern technology feigning as a saviour to the worlds refugee problems, new human rights violations are born.
For technology to prevent these assertions, bias's, and human rights violations leading to immigration officials being mere facilitators of this inequality discourse, there needs to be a line drawn in the sand using technosolutionism in the asylum seeker application process. This line will prevent the overriding power imbalance, control and pre-perceived judgement of a refugee before they even arrive at a country's border. Additionally, it will reinforce the privacy and rights of refugees to allow the fortification of cultural sensitivity during the application process.
Photo by Rodion Kutsaev on Unsplash