1. Article In discussion : Anna Spain Bradley (2019) "Human Rights Racism" Harvard human rights journal. 32 (1), 1-58 According to Spain Bradley, racism is a violation of human rights because it works to dehumanize individuals and communities by undermining their humanity through imagined categories designed to place peoples in a hierarchy. Racism also implies intended animus to interfere with one's exercise of a right. This takes the form of hate speech, physical violence, or other forms of direct discrimination. Racism is also independent as an example of racial ideology that works through thoughts, behaviors, actions, and inaction. For Spain - Bradley, racism should be recognized in international human rights law for the same reason racial discrimination is. Focusing on instances of discrimination ignores the deeper harms experienced by the victim through the racist hatred. Racism captures the experience of the victim, not just the wrongdoing of the perpetrator. Racism must thus be recognized as an international human rights violation because law must better clarify the protections it provides to marginalized populations. Is Spain Bradley's account persuasive? Do you concur with her view that Human Rights that ensure protection against Racial Discrimination are limited in their reach and do not consider racism's more systemic manifestations? Why or why not? Article in discussion: Will Kymlicka and Sue Donaldson (2014) "Animals and the Frontiers of citizenship" Oxford journal of legal studies. 34 (2), 201 2. Will Kymlicka and Sue Donaldson contend that domesticated animals must be socialized, as this is natural to their development and increases their ability to exist with humans. Animals thus have rights and responsibilities that must be advanced in accordance with their own unique inclinations and not those of reason and ability. An animals' well-being is much more than mere physical condition or carrying out human decided tasks in ways that are "most optimal" to them. Citizenship presupposes that societies serve the interests of all members and thus as citizens, animals have a role in determining what that looks like. Domesticated animals must thus be given the freedom to explore options about what a good life consists of. In response to Kymlicka and Donaldson, do you think citizenship should be granted to non-domesticated animals as well? Is the line between domesticated and non-domesticated animals a bit more fluid than assumed in the article