International Day for the Right to the Truth Concerning Human Rights Violations and for the Dignity of Victims - 2025

               Last Monday, 24th of March, all over the world this is the day to remember the victims of human rights violations and their fight for truth, justice and dignity. So, this post is a tribute to all victims that suffered injustice and died without have it, to all human rights defenders who help to bring justice and truth for anyone looking for them, and to all victims that are fighting now for truth, justice and dignity. We all should participate in this fight because it is very important to fight against injustice. Without justice the violations can spread because the perpetrators feel they can do more and more and then we'd are all surviving in this nightmare called dystopia that would become a evil system difficult to combat. Therefore, help fighting human rights violations and injustice, when many abuses have systematically been done for so long time, the justice is even more important.  Do not think you are unreachable. We all must record any violation of human rights happening now. The systematic violations, the impunity, the daily bullying on TV, the indirectly threats about the creation of lies exist to do the victims give up to fight for justice, democracy and political rights. Besides, the violations, the systematic abuses, the daily humiliation and decades of impunity can have a dehumanizing effect in the population, do not let this happens, the solidarity and empathy are the essence of all human being.     This post is a summary of three articles. The first was published at https://unipd-centrodirittiumani.it/en/news/march-24-united-nations-international-day-for-the-right-to-the-truth. The second was published at https://www.oas.org/en/IACHR/jsForm/?File=/en/iachr/media_center/PReleases/2025/058.asp&utm_term=class-dc. The third was published at https://www.coe.int/en/web/commissioner/-/victims-of-human-rights-violations-deserve-more

                 The Purpose of this day is to honor the memory of victims of systematic human rights violations and promote the importance of the right to truth and justice. To pay tribute to those who have dedicated and lost their lives in the struggle to promote and protect human rights for all. To recognize, in particular, the important work of Monsignor Oscar Romero of El Salvador, who was assassinated on March 24th, 1980, after denouncing violations of human rights of the population and defending the lives, promoting human dignity and oppose to violence. U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres emphasizes that truth is a source of strength and healing. He recalled the importance of truth as a powerful light. This light exposes violations that perpetrators would prefer to keep hidden, that illuminates a path towards peace, justice, and remediations for victims, and compels countries to uphold their obligations under international law.                                                                                                                                                                                     On the International Day for the Right to the Truth Concerning Human Rights Violations, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) and the U.N. Special Rapporteur on the Promotion of Justice and Reparation are calling on States across the Americas to intensify their efforts to ensure accountability and take more decisive action on memory, truth and justice. The IACHR and the U.N. Special Rapporteur have observed positive steps in different countries in the Americas towards implementing transitional justice policies in order to secure the rights of victims of human rights violations. However, they warn that these advances are often not sustained and that regressive actions weaken or delay them. Experts have expressed concern over the failure of many States to adopt a holistic approach that coordinates efforts between different state authorities to comprehensively address human rights violations. They note that victims and their families are often left to struggle alone in their pursuit of justice and reparation, often enduring the long-term effects of arbitrary actions on their lives and communities while receiving inadequate responses from public authorities. Both the IACHR and the U.N. Special Rapporteur have repeatedly highlighted the obstacle countries must overcome in the fight against impunity and to achieve reparation for victims while preserving historical memory. To move forward, it is imperative that States implement policies to support truth, justice and reparation, taking a holistic approach that is grounded in the universal, and indivisible nature of human rights. The IACHR and the U.N. Special Rapporteur are calling on States to set up efforts to uphold their international obligations regarding justice. Failure to address injustices denies victims their dignity and undermines the construction of a more just and rights-respecting society, both today and for the future.                                                                                                                                                                                    The right to reparations is a basic human right. It is enshrined in numerous international human rights instruments. Victims of human rights abuses have a right to redress for the suffering and harm caused to them. Reparation is the last step in the achievement of human rights protection. Fistly, violations of human rights should be prevented. Secondly, if a violation does take place, it must be investigated (promptly, thoroughly and impartially). Thirdly, victims should have access to justice. And finally, victims have the right to receive adequate reparation. The question of reparation for victims falls to receive the attention it deserves. Governments have ducked the issue and left to the former prisoners themselves to fight for their rights in complicated court procedures. What does reparation entail? Financial compensation is the most widespread form of reparation. Some damage can be easily estimated in monetary terms, for example loss of earnings, costs of assistance, while other forms can't. I am thinking about mental or moral damages. By taking a victim-oriented approach, we affirm our human solidarity with victims of violations of human rights. Of course, reparations can never fully undo the damage that has been done. Violations of human rights are irreparable. But this must not impede us from fighting to achieve fair redress for victims. The "U.N. Basic Principle on the Right to Reparation" are a good starting point for implementing the various aspects of reparation, a key element to full human rights protection.

40th Anniversary of Redemocratization in Brazil

                    One week ago, precisely on 15th March the return of democracy in Brazil completed 40 years. We all must always defend democracy, human rights, potilical inclusion and justice. We need not only to defend democracy, but search for the improvement of democracy. We must always remember that there is not democracy without human rights and there is not human rights without democracy. For more than two decades I have had this actvism for better political education, for more respect for human rights, for better justice,  I have a YouTube channel here is the link.   https://www.youtube.com/@lucianofietto4773/videos.            This post is a summary of two articles. The first was published at https://agenciabrasil.ebc.com.br/en/politica/noticia/2025-03/brazil-celebrates-40-years-end-military-dictatorship. The second was published athttps://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/inline_images/Brazil.pdf

                       Brazil's current democratic regime has celebrated its 40th anniversary. It is the longest uninterrupted democratic period in the country's history since the proclamation of the republic in 1889. A lengthy process resulted in the end of 21 years of dictatorship (1964-1985), with the redemocratization being marked by the inauguration of José Sarney as president on March 15, 1985. Until then, Sarney had been the vice-president of president-elect Tancredo Neves. The election had taken place two months earlier by indirect vote, through the Congress. However, Neves's health deteriorated and he had to be hospitalized the day before the swearing-in ceremony. Sarney then took over on an interim basis. "Neves didn't want to be operated on without seeing that the democratic transition would take place, because he knew we could have a political setback if we fell into disagreement," Sarney noted during an event in Brasilia celebrating the date. Noting that Brazil was facing major uncertainties about the nation's political future and the fear that the military would refuse to hand power back to society, Sarney said that Tancredo only agreed to undergo intestinal surgery when he was assured that Sarney would be sworn in, that the Federal Constitution would be observed, and that "the democratic transition would be guided by the law." Tancredo Neves died on April 21, after 39 days in hospital, aged 75. Following his passing, Congress installed Sarney as president. "Those were years of struggle. Setbacks were not only possible but likely, but we managed to overcome them," Sarney declared. Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva used his social media to celebrate the date. On X, he wrote that, beyond the significance of the inauguration of a new president, March 15, 1985, went down in history as "the day Brazil reunited with democracy." He added, "Sarney governed under the constant threat of those who longed for a returned of the dictatorship, but with extraordinary skill and political commitment he bought the conditions for us to write the Citizen Constitution of 1988 and change Brazil's history." In a video message, the head of Brazil's Supreme Court Carmen Lúcia said that democracy is under permanent construction.                                                                                                                                                                             Brazil was ruled by the military since 1964. Repression peaked in the early 1970s. Impatience with the military regime accelerated after the economy went into crisis in 1982. By 1985, though an attempt to install its preferred candidate in the presidency, the opposition was able to overcome the system of indirect election and prevail in the election. A sanctioned opposition had been permitted for most of the period of military rule, but the military regime proved increasingly incapable of holding democratic demands in check. Direct elections of governorsand federal and local representatives were reintroduced in 1982. While not formally unified, opposition groups frequently cooperated in order to organize mass demonstrations, such as of 1983 and 1984, calling for direct presidential elections. That effort failed, but the military was unable to prevent opposition candidate Tancredo Neves from triumphing in indirect elections in 1985. Direct elections to the presidency returned in 1989, and different parties have come to power since that time.

How To Stop Fascism: History, Ideology and Resistance

               We all must defend democracy and political rights for all. In Brazil we all must demand that voting machines print the voter's choice and also demand our political rights respected, freedom of speech, right to the monetization of social media, right to privacy and right to reparation whenever any right is violated. We shouldn't be afraid to fight for our rights because all the world is with us supporting this movement to greater democracy, human and political rights, governmental transparency and justice. We all must fight any kind of authoritarian political system that don't respect democracy and voter's choice. The Brazilian institutions including from the government must do more to reinforce human rights. The cowardice and injustice can't carry on. The good people of the world is demanding a fairer and inclusive  Brazil and their demand must be heard for all.  If you want to know my channel and see a small sample of the huge worldwide movement for justice, democracy and political rights, watch my videos, here is the link   https://www.youtube.com/@lucianofietto4773/videos.              This post is a summary of two book reviews of the book with the title above. The first was published at https://www.ebb-magazine.com/reviews/how-to-stop-fascism. The second was published at https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lsereviewofbooks/2021/12/08/book-review-how-to-stop-fascism-history-ideology-resistance-by-paul-mason/

                Paul Mason, the self-declared 'Gramscian social-democrat', has written a book on anti-fascism. In "How To Stop Fascism:History, Ideology and Resistance," Mason construct a familiar narrative in which the left paved the way to fascism by alienating reformists and the liberal centre. His defence of the centrist politics rests on the assumption that liberalism is self-moderating. A notion belied by the liberal establishment's response to the social and economic crises of the 1920s and 1930s. Mason's claim to provide a new, materislist theory of fascism is undermined by his tacit promotion of a culturalist framing of civilisational conflict and romanticised portrayal of the 'rationalist, liberal principles of the Enlightenment'. This reflects Mason's increasing preocupation to defend the liberal order against what he calls the 'authoritarian, anti-modernist dictatorships'. At a time when neoliberal states are intensifying their powers to suppress popular protest and stifle intellectual dissent, "How To Stop Fascism", calls for a revival of the 'militant democracy' adopted by anti-communist governments in the Cold War context. In the First World War, the reformists parties of the Second International allowed themselves to be swept up in the patriotic fervour, mobilising labour movement support for a catastrophic inter-imperialist conflict. Over the following decade, the ability to advance a socialist counter to the rise of reaction was utterly hamstrung by its 'sense of constitutionalist responsibility and traditional prejudices about the undisciplined instincts of the non-Social Democratic masses'. As Mason acknowledges, the reformists were blindly committed to legality, at a time when politics was becoming radical, populist and moving to the streets.' Mason is correct to say of liberal democracy that not only does it allow workers and oppressed people the space to organize in but we, the people, actually helped created it, through two centuries of struggle. The rise of fascism demonstrated how quickly the 'men of power, and privilege' are willing to dispense with political liberties if they see this as necessary to preserving their order. Deploying the Gramscian language of hegemony, Mason argues that a modern front needs to occupy some kind of centre ground on social issues: 'if there is a social force that represent progress, it needs to builds alliance with other social forces and to avoid needless cultural friction with them. While in his book Mason distances himself from the Cold War theory of totalitarianism, which served the political purpose of mobilising anti-fascists rhetoric against various threats to post-war capitalism, he has clearly internalised its inner logic. After the outbreak of the Ukraine conflict, Mason asserted that "the whole survival of democracy and the post-1945 charter system depends on defeating, morally, politically and if necessary militarily, states which have become aggressive, totalitarian and ethnonationalist.' "How To Stop Fascism" concludes by calling for a revival of the 'militant democracy' advocated by liberals in the post-war context. Mason is an instructive case of what happens when the watering down of principle for the sake of pragmatism is guiding politics.                                                                                                               A thought-provoking, uneasy and striking statement of, 'Fascism is back' opens "How To Stop Fascism: History, Ideology, Resistance". Paul Mason, a British TV commentator and award-winning journalist, sets out to warn the world of the fascist danger and to provide a practical guide on how to fight back. At a time of democratic backsliding around the globe, Mason's book arrives at a timely moment to warn people, of what might slip away from their hands. The book talks about a new kind of fascism, but one which is no less harmful or threatening. On the contrary, what we witness today is as dangerous as fascism in the past, if not more so. While all of their actions aim to undermine the rule of law and intimidate opponents in general. And online spaces, such as Telegram and Signal, play into the hands of fascists, providing them with easy and anonymised platforms to spread hatred, fantasies of violence and conspiracy theories. Mason provides a detailed historical account of fascism in an attenpt to explain the process by which fascism emerged in Europe during the interwar period and to draw similarities with today. They took advantage of the economic crisis of the Great Depression which caused high inflation and mass unemployment, as well as the inability of liberal explanations or interventions of the time to address the needs of people. Drawing on lessons from history, Mason's main solution to fascism is 'to win the battle of ideas, and well in advance of its electoral breakthrough'. This solution requires two main approaches. First, fascism should be understood as an ideological war, not just based on conspitacy theories but also in intolerance and violence. To that end, Mason defines fascism as 'the fear of freedom triggered by a glimpse of freedom. As such, a fascist mindset fears that a 'group that is supposed to be subordinate to them might be on the verge of achieving freedom and equality'. We already observe that populists and authoritarians put significant efforts into preventing other people from achieving greater freedom and impeding them any gained rights. Second, the struggle against fascism requires a greater alliance. Parties and people should put aside their differences and unite to defend democracy. Furthermore, Mason states that this goal could achieved only by involving 'struggles both from below and coercive action by the state'. The book offers suggestive evidence not only to explain the process by which fascism emerged in the 1930s, but also to provide guidance for both activists and political elites around the world to stop fascism today. The book is also relatable to many other nascent topics in political science, including populism, new authoritarianism and political polarisation.

140th Birthday of Sinclair Lewis

                              Almost one month ago, precisely on 7th of February, the American writer Sinclair Lewis would complete 140 years-old. So this post is a tribute to him. He wrote against totalitarianism and hypocrisy and about the importance of democracy, freedom of speech and free media, political inclusion and free elections.  This post is a summary of two articles. The first was published at https://www.britannica.com/biography/Sinclair-Lewis. The second was published at https://repositorio.ual.es/bitstream/handle/10835/13465/MORILLAS%20HURTADO%2C%20JOSE%20CARLOS.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

                                 Sinclair Lewis (1885-1951) was an American novelist and social critic who punctured American complacency with his broadly drawn, widely popular satirical novels. He won the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1930, the first given to an American. Lewis Graduated from Yale University in 1907 and was for a time a reporter and also worked as an editor for several publishers. His first novel, "Our Mr. Wrenn" (1914), attracted favourable criticism. At the same time he was writing with success for popular magazines such as Cosmopolitan. "Main Street" (1920) is seen through the eyes of Carol Kennicott, an Eastern girl married to a Midwestern doctor who settles in Minnesota. The power of the book derives from Lewis' careful rendering of local speech, customs and social amenities. The satire is double-edged. In the years following its publication, Main Street became not just a novel but the textbook on American provincialism. In 1922, Lewis published "Babbit", a study of the complacent American whose individuality has been sucked out of him Rotary clubs, business ideals and general conformity. The name Babbit passed into general usage to represent the optimistic, self-congratulatory, middle-aged businessman whose horizons were bounded by his village limits. He followed this success with "Arrowsmith" (1925), a satiric study of the medical profession, with emphasis on the frustation of fine scientific ideals. His next important book, "Elmer Gantry" (1927), was an attack on the ignorant, gross and predatory leaders who had crept into the Protestant church. "It Can't Happen Here" (1935) dramatized the possibilities of a Fascist takeover of the U.S. In 1930, as a recognition to his remarkable back catalogue, he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature, "for his vigorous and graphic art of description and his ability to create, with wit and humour, new type of character". He was the first American writer to receive such a prestigious acknoledgement. "It Can't Happen Here", was published in 1935 and in this novel he describes an American society where fascism slowly takes control. This novel comes as a response by Sinclair Lewis to the growing wave of totalitarian regimes that were arising in the decade of the Great Depression, showing his inner fear of this political movement planting its seed in the minds of the American people. This opportunitty that people had to identify with the story on a practical level, made it easier for this specific audience to see the relation between the demagogues in the story and their counterparts in real life. "It Can't Happen Here", would be his last piece of work to be widely acclaimed by the public. His following productions, although they made him money, were not considered to demonstrate the high quality that was present in previous publications. Although Sinclair Lewis was part of a democratic society, he still saw the cracks in the system that could potentially affect in a negative way. As he was concerned like the development of fascism in such an advanced and highly educated nation as Germany. The totalitarian approaches to politics also come with the removal of freedom of speech in the media. This topic is represented in a very personal manner in "It Can't Happen Here", since the main character, Doremus Jessup who is a journalist, suffers from this issue at first hand. After witnessing his country fall apart and drift away from the American values that it once had, we can see how Doremus lost the very thing that still held meaningful value to him. Sinclair Lewis made this character to be involved in journalism as a way to bring awareness to how serious the removal of liberty in the media truly is, and to showcase the evolution that this activity experiences in a fascist regime. In this novel, we can see how Windrip's despises the notion of the economic systems that were implemented around the world at the time, and considers them as enemies. Buzz Windrip paints them as the reason for the American debacle, therefore the country should work against them. He also conveys the idea that a brief authoritarian government would be ideal for the quick recovery of the situation in the country. In this depiction of a fascist American state, Doremus Jessup serves as a representation of the willingness of people to not lose their authenticity and to fight against a deeply rotten system where the individual freedom that America was built on no longer exists. With this novel, Sinclair is demonstrating how easily it could be to demolish the democratic basis of a society, and also how the economic difficulties can radicalize the way in which people think. In "It Can't Happen Here", we can recognize the role that propaganda plays in the development and survival of a totalitarian regime. In "It Can't Happen Here", we are witnesses to the radicalization of the political approach in a dystopian U.S. I want to bring awareness about his aggressive manner of conducting politics during his term, and how people should be able to identify these unoriginal concepts which he based his message on. We have the power to choose who represents us in government, this is why we should use our right wisely in order not to elect people lisleading discourses are ultimately harmful towards society.