Twelve days ago, precisely on 23rd of August was celebrated in Brazil, the day of fighting injustice. We all must defend justice, because when there is some systematic injustice happening for so long, a dangerous precedent can happen, destroying democracy, undermining rule of law and fundamental human rights. So, the public trust in our institutions is severely harmed. Besides, when there is not justice, the abuses tend to grow, spreading and affecting many more people. So if you have witnessed any violation of human rights, record it and help fight injustice. The systematic violations, the impunity, the daily bullying on mainstream media, the threats online and offline exist to do the victims give up to fight for their rights and reparations. Besides the violations, the systematic abuses, the daily humiliation and the impunity can have a dehumanizing effect in the population, trying us accept what can not be accepted, do not let this happen to you, the solidarity and the emphaty are the essence of the human beings. We all should recognize who have courage to defend our human rights including our political rights. Because always there are costs to do this, so help who is losing to defend our rights. This post is a summary of two articles. The first was published at https://summer.harvard.edu/blog/how-can-an-individual-fight-systemic-injustice/. The second was published at https://slaveryandjusticereport.brown.edu/sections/confronting-historical-injustice-comparative-perspectives/
As many of us look at the news today and see the injustices that are happening, we may find ourselves wanting to do what we can to help make a change. However, many of us get stuck at the "how" part of doing this and then give up. When these challenges seem too substantial and daunting, it can be difficult to see how the actions of one person, or even a small group, can make a change. If everyone who wanted to enact positive change got stuck at the "how," we would not have had leaders like Martin Luther King, labor activist Dolores Huerta, or more recently, environmentalist Greta Thunberg or U.S. representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. The first two steps of getting involved in justice activism? Educate yourself on the issues (historically and currently). Get involved on the local level through grassroots organizing or nonprofit organizations. Inspired in part by the course Activism in the Struggle for Justice, I have put together a list to get you started in achieving those goals, as well as to inspire you to continue to ask for equality and justice for your community, our society, and for humankind. Human history is characterized not only by slavery but also by genocide, forced labor, starvation through siege, torture, forced religious conversion, and any number of other forms of gross injustice. Different civilizations at different historical moments have developed their own understandings of such practices, specifying the conditions under which they were allowed or forbidden and against whom they might legitimately be directed. Jews, Christians, and Muslims all devised rules for slavery and civilian populations. Our era is hardly the first ro grapple with humanity's capacity for evil. The idea that certain actions were inherently illegitimate and should be universally prohibited, no matter the circumstance or the particular target group, emerged in the 18th century. At the root of this belief that all human beings partook of a common nature and were thus entitled to share certain basic rights and protections. In bequeathing us the ideas of shared humanity and fundamental human rights, the 18th century also left us with a series of practical and philosophical problems. How are human rights to be enforced and defended? Do nation-states have the right to treat their own citizens as they please, or are there occassions when the demands of humanity trump national sovereignty? How are perpetrators of human rights abuse to be held to account? Are those who suffered violations of their rights entitled to some form of redress, and if so, from what quarter? How do societies move forward in the aftermath of great crimes? Broadly speaking, the history of efforts to restrain and redress the effects of injustices has proceeded in two phases. The first, stretching from the late 18th century to the aftermath of the II World War, revolved around efforts to define and enforce international norms of humanitarian conduct in regard to three scourges: slavery, offenses committed during times of war, and genocide. These efforts reached a climax of sorts at Nuremberg, where the leaders of Nazi German were prosecuted. The second phase, beginning at Nuremberg and continuing to our own time, has focused less on prevention or prosecution than on redress , on repairing the injuries that crimes of violations leave. At the most obvious level, this entails making provision for the victims of violations and their survivors, but also involves broader processes of social rehabilitation, aimed at rebuilding political communities that have been shattered. If there is a single common element in all exercises in retrospective justice, it is truth telling. Whether justice is pursued through prosecution, the tendering of formal apologies, the offering of material reparations, or some combination of all three, the first task is to create a clear historical record of events and to inscribe that record in the collective memory of the relevant institution or nation. Of course, the truth is not always easy to discern. Most violations are sprawling events, unfolding over years and involving vast numbers of actors. Documentation is often in short supply, sometimes because records were not kept. As some revelations suggest, not everyone wishes to have the full truth told. As a general rule, perpetrators and their associates are anxious to see societies "turn the page" on the past. The struggle over retrospective justice is waged not only in courts and legislatures but also on the wider terrain of history and memory, in battles over textbooks. But if the basic principle of reparations is straightforward enough, the application of that principle in specific cases is complex. What form should reparations take? Who is entitled to receive and who is responsible to provide? How is the value of an injury to be calculated? What happens to reparations claims with the passage of time? Beneath these practical matters lay deeper moral and political questions. What are reparations intended to accomplish? Are they an end in themselves or one aspect of a broader process of repair and reconciliation? How does one make restitution for a human life or time in a torture chamber? What happens when the interests of victims and perpetrators do not agree on the appropriate form of reparations? Even where money is accepted as the medium of reparation, the question of determining the appropriate amount remains.
No comments:
Post a Comment