This week carry on the importance of fighting injustice. The victims of injustice often suffer from high stress, depression, anxiety, insomnia, and the consequencies these mental disosder. And the most important for them , what can cure them is to have their rights respected, justice they are long waiting for. For example, How can a world famous person like me, to have only 7 visualizations on Youtube when put some video, and 7 subscribers, this is very hard to believe. The same has been happening with this blog counter since I made it in 2010, simply don't show us the real number. I really don't know why I have been harmed for so long time and in many ways. Another injustice have been my political rights violated for no reason, what I hope this year they are respected. Including this text below is about the importance of political rights for all. Once more I'd like to thank all demonstration of solidarity and support for my political rights felt for us here in Brazil. We should strongly reinforce our human rights and justice, because sometimes rumors try to put the blame of violations on the victims in a total inversion of values, we can't accept it, nothing justify the systemic injustice. We can't accept these many injustice and evils used to put fear in people. This post is a summary of one article published at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fighting-injustice-within-without-andreas-phelps-ph-d-?trk=pulse-article_more-articles_related-content-card. And the summary of the chapter twelve of the book with the title of, "Fighting poverty, inequality and injustice: A manifest inspired by Peter Townsend." https://books.google.com.br/booksid=LAFpDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA243&lpg=PA243&dq=fighting+injustice+nowadays&source=bl&ots=hMnrbDad0d&sig=ACfU3U0GgT6bHXs2vQxI3QT2gqQXNaJETA&hl=ptBR&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiwpLCBg_v5AhWgs5UCHZQnDj4
I was re-reading MLK's letter from Birmingham jail, which is a powerful call to defend justice in the world. His famous quote from that letter is: "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." However, I also found compelling his discussion of justice itself and our inherent responsibility as citizens to determine whether the "man-made code squares with the moral law." This is the discernment we each must use every day to evaluate whether our actions are in service of our highest purpose in this life. In his appeal to his fellow clergymen, MLK defines "just laws" as those that uplift human personality and make equality legal, whereas unjust laws degrade human personality and make difference legal. Since laws are simply a code of behavior, this distinction should apply to all our actions. The basic question is whether we are choosing to see the "other" as a human with all the complexities that make up the human predicament or whether we choose to reduce them to a flat static object (less than ourselves) and use them to justify or defend some flawed and limiting personal belief. Racism, sexism, nationalism, or any other system of beliefs which seeks to label and treat other as less human are gross example of this. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn wrote that "the line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either, but right through every human heart." For many of us, the opportunity to stand up to injustice in a bold and public way may be a rare occurrence. However, instead of degrading the other, sometimes, for our own defense, there are many moments where we can choose justice, choose to see the other as fully human, choose to call out injustice but in such a way that keeps our hearts at peace. I know so many people, included myself, that feel helpless in the face of the many injustices plaguing the world. We wish we could do more. In this chapter I want to explore a position that Peter unequivocally adopted, but I acknowledge immediately both that it is a hard one to maintain and also that few non-lawyers (much less lawyers) have argued for it: can we be strongly in favour of human rights but at the same time be against the lawyers' exclusive appropriation of the term? It is a difficult stance because the idea of human rights has been so indelibly associated with the legal profession from the moment of its re-emergence in 1948 (with the UDHR) and particularly since 1989, when the collapse of the Berlin Wall brought down Soviet communism forever. The core of human rights was for Peter to be found not in the courtroom but on the streets, in the souls of the activists and campaigners who were seeking by their human rights inspired actions to change society for the better. In the spirit of Peter Townsend, and following in his footsteps, I will argue three propositions. The first assertion is that the idea of human rights in general (and social and political rights in particular) is valuable, that such entitlements deserve not just our protection but also to be respected and promoted. My second point is that the value of this notion of social rights lies principally in the political arena, this being the world in which the good that these words do can be best concretised or most fruitfully deployed. The primary way of embedding human rights properly (and social rights particularly) in any culture, of making this commitment check work, should be via the political process. The experience of Oxfam is that the realisation of economic, social rights can most effectively be achieved with the active participation of those affected. The range of civil society groups that reach for human rights to articulate this need for action and to express the solidarity that flows collective engagement in tackling poverty is impressive and truly international in its reach. Good examples can be pointed to in Wales, in Brazil and in the U.S. There are many others, what unites them is not the language of international human rights law but rather their use of human rights as an idea, a way of asserting dignity, respect for themselves and an insistence that they too (despite their disadvantage and often their misfortune) deserve to be treated properly. This is exactly how Peter used the term, and how best it can be deployed to achieve socially valuable outcomes. A common commitment to human rights can enable the building of alliances that would be difficult without the sharing of a common vision that this term makes possible. Human rights are authentic when they reflect the values and principles that are rooted in the instinct to help, the perceived obligation to care for the stranger that has been part of our species behaviour since the dawn of human time. The term is an open-textured one, its content changes over time as new ways of expressing basic values come to the fore, assuming a human rights shape in order both to capture the essence of what the right is about and at the same time to push for its further realisation in the culture in which the argument for it is being made. All of this is particularly true of social rights because it is the social rights that is now at the frontier of rights talk. The rights can also be added to as new challenges get successfully framed in the language of rights, on disability for example, or the rights of indigenous people. Viewed in this way, the framing, detailing, and embedding of social rights are quintessential political activities.
No comments:
Post a Comment