Rome Italy 20 July 201\5
 |
| Will you remain CONTENT TO LOOK ON PASSIVELY and let it happen to your children, parents and relatives you have lefty behind in the country? |
Throughout history people have strived to be free. Yet all people still live with less freedom than is possible. Individuals must sacrifice some of their freedom in order to live in even a democratic society, such as for example not being able to violate any laws. Additionally, even if one lives in a free society, their freedom is limited by the need to earn a living, which subjects them to spending time in a dictatorship environment, or even slavery, if tied to a capitalled employer as a paid worker.
True freedom is the ability for each person to live as they desire. This is the ultimate human dream, and therefore should be Humanity's consummate goal.We could accelerate the pace at which we reach this better world if we made the same a common goal, and devoted some more resources toward finding the knowledge to make it a reality for all.
When there is interaction between humans, there must be some limits on conduct. Any rules, and methods for enforcing the rules, should be established by the majority of humans through democracy. Basic fundamental government services are also necessary for coordinating common efforts, determining land use, and ensuring that everyone has access to the production capabilities. Under such future technological circumstances all institutions, other than government, are unnecessary. Multiple levels of government are unnecessary, and a global government is all that is needed. Of course there should be total freedom for people to organize.
We often think of freedom in a military sense—a war is won, soldiers return home, prisoners are freed, and bullets no longer fly. People walk their streets in safety, and citizens enjoy such rights as free speech, voting, and worshipping as they choose. From this perspective, liberty is achieved through force—combat or a military presence and maintained through laws, governing bodies, judges, and men and women who fight against those who oppose freedom.
What is, there this so-called freedom or human rights? This is defined in the preamble of trhe United Nation InUniversal Declaration of Human rights.[2]
Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and
inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of
freedom, justice and peace in the world,
Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in
barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of
a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and
freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the
common people,
Whereas it is
essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against
tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of
law,
Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly
relations between nations,
Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter
reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of
the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined
to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,
The fundamental rights of every person living on this planet is
defined in Articles 1 – 30 of the aforementioned Declaration of Rights [2]
What it Means to Violate
Human Rights
There is now near-universal consensus that all
individuals are entitled to certain basic rights under any circumstances. These include
certain civil liberties and political rights, the most fundamental of which is
the right to life and physical safety. Human rights are the articulation of the
need for justice, tolerance, mutual respect, and human dignity in all of
our activity. Speaking of rights allows us to express the idea that all
individuals are part of the scope of morality and justice.
To protect
human rights is to ensure that
people receive some degree of decent, humane treatment. To violate the most
basic human rights, on the other hand, is to deny individuals their fundamental
moral entitlements. It is, in a sense, to treat them as if they are less than
human and undeserving of respect and dignity.
Examples
are acts typically deemed "crimes against humanity,"
including genocide, torture, slavery, rape, enforced sterilization
or medical experimentation, and deliberate starvation. Because these policies are sometimes implemented
by governments, limiting the unrestrained power of the state is an important
part of international
law. Underlying laws that
prohibit the various "crimes against humanity" is the principle of
nondiscrimination and the notion that certain basic rights apply universally.
[3]
The number of deaths related to combat and the collateral damage
caused by warfare are only a small part of the tremendous amount of suffering and devastation caused by conflicts. Over the course of
protracted conflict, assaults on political rights and the fundamental right to
life are typically widespread. Some of the gravest violations of the right to
life are massacres, the starvation of entire populations, and genocide.
Genocide is commonly understood as the intentional extermination of a single ethnic,
racial, or religious group. Killing group members, causing them serious bodily
or mental harm, imposing measures to prevent birth, or forcibly transferring
children are all ways to bring about the destruction of a group. Genocide is
often regarded as the most offensive crime against humanity.
The term "war crime" refers to a violation of the rules
of jus in bello (justice in war) by any individual, whether
military or civilian. The laws of armed conflict prohibit attacks on civilians
and the use of weapons that cause unnecessary suffering or long-term
environmental damage. Other war crimes include taking hostages, firing on
localities that are undefended and without military significance, such as
hospitals or schools, inhuman treatment of prisoners, including biological
experiments, and the pillage or purposeless destruction of property. Although
clearly outlawed by international law, such war crimes are common. According to
Kofi Annan, Secretary-General of the United Nations, it is increasingly true
that "the main aim...[of conflicts]... is the destruction not of armies
but of civilians and entire ethnic groups.”
Women and girls are often raped by soldiers or forced into
prostitution. For a long time, the international community has failed to
address the problem of sexual violence during armed conflict. However, sexual
assaults, which often involve sexual mutilation, sexual humiliation, and forced pregnancy, are quite common.
Such crimes are motivated in part by the long-held view that women are the
"spoils" of war to which soldiers are entitled. Trafficking in women
is a form of sexual slavery in which women are transported across national
borders and marketed for prostitution. These so-called "comfort
women" are another example of institutionalized sexual violence against
women during wartime. Sexual violence is sometimes viewed as a way to destroy
male and community pride or humiliate men who cannot "protect" their
women. It is also used to silence women who are politically active, or simply
inflict terror upon the population at large. Mass rapes may also form part of a
genocidal strategy, designed to impose conditions that lead to the destruction
of an entire group of people. For example, during the 1990s, the media reported
that "rape and other sexual atrocities were a deliberate and systematic
part of the Bosnian Serb campaign for victory in the war" in the former Yugoslavia.
Rather than simply killing off whole populations, government
forces may carry out programs of torture. Torture can be either physical or
psychological, and aims at the "humiliation or annihilation of the dignity
of the person." Physical torture might include mutilation, beatings, and
electric shocks to lips, gums, and genitals. In psychological torture,
detainees are sometimes deprived of food and water for long periods, kept
standing upright for hours, deprived of sleep, or tormented by high-level
noise.
Torture is used in some cases as a way to carry out interrogations
and extract confessions or information. Today, it is increasingly used as a
means of suppressing political and ideological dissent, or for punishing
political opponents who do not share the ideology of the ruling group.
In addition to torture, tens of thousands of people detained in
connection with conflicts "disappear" each year, and are usually killed
and buried in secret. Government forces "take people into custody, hold
them in secret, and then refuse to acknowledge responsibility for their
whereabouts or fate." This abduction of persons is typically intended to
secure information and spread terror. In most cases, interrogations involve
threats and torture, and those who are arrested are subsequently killed.
Corpses are buried in unmarked graves or left at dumpsites in an attempt to
conceal acts of torture and summary
execution of those in custody. Because people disappear without any trace,
families do not know whether their loved ones are alive or dead.
Various lesser forms of political oppression are often enacted as
well. Individuals who pose a threat to those in power or do not share their
political views may be arbitrarily imprisoned, and either never brought to
trial or subject to grossly unfair trial procedures. Mass groups of people may
be denied the right to vote or excluded from all forms of political
participation. Or, measures restricting people's freedom of movement may be
enforced. These include forcible relocations, mass expulsions, and denials of
the right to seek asylum or return to one's home.
Political oppression may also take the form of discrimination. When this occurs, basic rights may be
denied on the basis of religion, ethnicity, race, or gender. Apartheid, which
denies political rights on the basis of race, is perhaps one of the most severe
forms of discrimination. The system of apartheid in South Africa
institutionalized extreme racial segregation that involved laws against
interracial marriage or sexual relations and requirements for the races to live
in different territorial areas. Certain individuals were held to be inferior by
definition, and not regarded as full human beings under the law. The laws
established under this system aimed at social control, and brought about a
society divided along racial lines and characterized by a systematic disregard
for human rights.
In addition, women are uniquely vulnerable to certain types of human
rights abuses -- in addition to the sexual abuse mentioned above, entrenched
discrimination against women is prevalent in many parts of the world and leads
to various forms of political and social oppression. This includes strict dress
codes and harsh punishments for sexual "transgressions," which impose
severe limitations on women's basic liberties. In addition, women in some
regions (Africa , for example) suffer greater poverty than men and are denied
political influence, education, and job training.[3]
The Question of
Humanitarian Intervention
There is much disagreement about when and to
what extent outside countries can engage in humanitarian
intervention. More
specifically, there is debate about the efficacy of using military force to
protect the human rights of individuals in other nations. This sort of debate
stems largely from a tension between state sovereignty and the rights of
individuals.
Some defend the principles of state sovereignty
and nonintervention, and argue that other states must be permitted to determine
their own course. It is thought that states have diverse conceptions of
justice, and international coexistence depends on a pluralist ethic whereby each
state can uphold its own conception of the good. Among many, there is "a
profound skepticism about the possibilities of realizing notions of universal
justice." States that presume to judge what counts as a violation of human
rights in another nation interfere with that nation's right to self-determination. In addition, requiring some country to respect
human rights is liable to cause friction and can lead to far-reaching disagreements.
Thus, acts of intervention may disrupt interstate order and lead to further
conflict.
Others think, "Only the vigilant eye of the
international community can ensure the proper observance of international
standards, in the interest not of one state or another but of the individuals
themselves.] They maintain that massive violations of human rights, such as
genocide and crimes against humanity, warrant intervention, even if it causes
some tension or disagreement. Certain rights are inalienable and universal, and
"taking basic rights seriously means taking responsibility for their
protection everywhere." If, through its atrocious actions, a state
destroys the lives and rights of its citizens, it temporarily forfeits its
claims to legitimacy and sovereignty. Outside governments then have a positive
duty to take steps to protect human rights and preserve life. In addition, it
is thought that political systems that protect human rights reduce the threat
of world conflict. Thus, intervention might also be justified on the ground of
preserving international security.
Nevertheless, governments are often reluctant to
commit military forces and resources to defend human rights in other states. In
addition, the use of violence to end human rights violations poses a moral
dilemma insofar as such interventions may lead to further loss of innocent
lives. It is imperative that the least amount of force necessary to achieve humanitarian
objectives be used, and that intervention not do more harm than good. Lastly,
there is a need to ensure that intervention is legitimate, and motivated by
genuine humanitarian concerns. The purposes of intervention must be apolitical
and disinterested. However, if risks and costs of intervention are high, it is
unlikely that states will intervene unless their direct interests are involved.
Many note that in order to truly address human
rights violations, we must strive to understand the underlying
causes of these breaches.
These causes have to do with underdevelopment, economic pressures, various
social problems, and international conditions.[39] Indeed, the roots of
repression, discrimination, and other denials of human rights stem from deeper
and more complex political, social, and economic problems. It is only by
understanding and ameliorating these root causes and strengthening civil
society that we can truly
protect human rights.
OFWs and Human Rights Violation In the Philippines
Many OFWs are unaware of the connections between
HRV and outward Migration of Filipino Workers, for one important reason:
Freedom from want (poverty) is a fundamental right of everty human being. If we
are looking for a common denominator, let us analyze this context. Almost every
OFW, in varying degrees, has experienced poverty, has seen it everywhere in the
country, and has known its devastating effects to a family, yet failed to see
the connection.
In the present set up of our establishment in
the Philippines, we should have known that it is SYSTEMATIC. The economic
programs of the country has no room for economic advancement of the people. It
aims to make the establishment rich without filtering the wealth to the people.
Only the very rich, mostly who benefits from the so-called economic advances of
the country. The few rich amassed more wealth, leaving the poor majory poor than
ever. For this reason, the workers has been left with no alternatives left
within the Philippine territory and are goaded to migrate.
OFWs must be informed and warned that our
country is in danger of sinking. We must know that facts and understand that
we, too, mjust act to help prevent it from happening, for the sake of our
kindreds, for the sake of our children and grand children.
There are many OFWs who even consider those who
vocally criticize the government for its failkure to give even a minimum remedy
to the problem of poverty. Many frown at the so-called activists who call for
action to dethrone the ruling regime.
But we must
understand that when the rule of the establishment has been to the dewtrement
of the people, it is
essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against
tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of
law (see Presamble of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights). And the
time is ripe! The establishment is, for a long time, has even been using what
was supposed to be the people’s protection from detrimental acts of the
establishment against the people, now is being used to commit more human rights
violations: silencing the critics by killing then or imprisoning them with
false accusation. The establishment is using the armed forces to stiffle lawful
protests and criticismsWith this acts of
terrorism the regime is commiting a series of Human Rights violations.
POVERTY IS TERRORISM.
Will you remain CONTENT TO LOOK ON PASSIVELY and let it happen to your children, parents and relatives you have lefty behind in the country?
THE CHOICE IS YOURS.
[1] Wikipedia
[2]
United Nations International
Declaration of Human Rights
[3] Human
Rights Violations, Beyond
Intractabiliy July 2003
.
No comments:
Post a Comment