Tag Archives: human rights

Do you believe that Putin may soon officially declare war on Ukraine, the US, and Western?

Russian President Vladimir Putin may declare war on Ukraine as early as May 9, allowing Russia to fully mobilize its reserve troops if invasion plans stall. However, in Russia, May 9 is celebrated as “Victory Day” for defeating the Nazis in 1945. Officials in the West have long assumed that Putin would use the day’s symbolic and propaganda importance to proclaim a military victory in Ukraine or a massive escalation of hostilities. Officials have focused on one scenario: Putin launched a war on Ukraine on May 9. Putin refers to the months-long struggle as a “special military operation,” thereby barring terms like invasion and war. According to British Defense Secretary Ben Wallace, he will strive to shift from his special operation.’ “So he has been tossing the dice, preparing the groundwork for a battle against Nazis that requires more people. “More Russian artillery fodder.”” The invasion of Ukraine — a nation led by a Jewish president — has been described as “denazification” by historians and political analysts alike.

He would not be astonished if Putin said on May Day that ‘we are now at war with the world’s Nazis and need to mass organize the Russian people, Wallace continued. An official war declaration on May 9 might enhance popular support for the invasion. Officials claim Russia urgently needs conscripts due to a rising labor shortfall. Since Russia attacked a little over two months ago, authorities in the West and Ukraine believe 10,000 Russian troops have died.

Vanuatu ‘s representative to the European Union made a political proposal

In December 2019, at the International Criminal Court in The Hague, Vanuatu’s representative to the European Union made a political proposal: to make environmental degradation a crime.

Vanuatu is a tiny island country in the South Pacific, a nation endangered by increasing sea levels. Global warming is an immediate and catastrophic problem in the region, and activities that triggered rising temperatures – such as the combustion of fossil fuels – has almost totally taken place abroad to satisfy other nations, with the blessing of state governments.

Small island states like Vanuatu have long sought to convince big, strong nations to voluntarily curb their pollution, but progress has been sluggish – Ambassador John Licht indicated that it might be time to change the legislation itself.

An enhancement to the Treaty, also known as the Rome Statute, developed by the International Criminal Court could criminalize ecocide-related actions, he said, adding that “this radical concept deserves serious debate.”
Ecocide: Should killing nature be a crime? – BBC Future. https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20201105-what-is-ecocide

Do you know what the colors in the rainbow flag stands for?

The rainbow flag that has turned out to be a worldwide icon of hope for LGBTQ individuals around the world, first flew in San Francisco bay area’s United Nations Plaza for Gay Pride Day, on June 25, 1978.

It had eight colors — two more than today’s version — and was created by Gilbert Baker, an openly gay artist, and activist. He has previously been accredited to develop an icon for the LGBTQ people by his associate Harvey Milk, the initial openly gay chosen official in California.

Baker drew motivation from the US national flag, which had commemorated its bicentennial in 1976, and a real rainbow, which showcases the colors of the light spectrum in approximately precisely the same sequence since the flag. He assigned a meaning to every one of this colors: hot pink for sex, red for life, orange for healing, yellow for sunlight, green for nature, turquoise for magic, blue for harmony and violet for spirit.

The first flag measured 30 by 60 feet and Baker, who was then 27 yrs. old, had sewn it by hand.

Pride flag: A history of the Gilbert Baker rainbow design …. https://www.cnn.com/style/article/pride-rainbow-flag-design-history/index.html

Jews in Dayton cautioned to keep away from the KKK rally

The representative of the Jewish Community Relations Council of Dayton called on the Jewish public to avoid a Ku Klux Klan rally arranged for Saturday in the Ohio metropolis.

Rabbi Ari Ballaban mentioned in a statement issued previously this week that a counter gathering planned to take place right next to the Honorable Sacred Knights, an Indiana-based white supremacist group, would just give the crowd the conflict it is looking for.

Ballaban called on the Jewish community to either remain home or attend the “positive alternative programming” sponsored by the localized NAACP chapter and a coalition of some forty city organizations. Titled “An Afternoon of Love, Unity, Peace and Diversity,” the program is being presented about a mile from the KKK gathering in the downtown area Courthouse Square.

About twenty participants of the KKK cluster are anticipated to march on Saturday. They reportedly will be permitted to carry legal sidearm weapons but not rifles, bats or shields, Newsweek reported. About one thousand demonstrators are also anticipated.

The city authorized the rally in February after the application to use the general public space was filled out correctly and submitted.

Mayor Nan Whaley also called on citizens to steer away of the KKK gathering.

“This hate group that is coming in from outside the community wants to instigate troubles in the community and people need to end that from happening,” she advised Ohio’s Fox45. The people actually do not need people to go downtown because that is what this hate group wants, and we don’t want to render this hate group exactly what they want.

Whaley in her comments additionally stated that Judaism standards the preservation of life on top almost anything else.

Fight Draconian Anti-Abortion Laws

Anti-abortion activists and legislators appear to be against Roe v. Wade, and they are getting close to eliminating this case. All-male legislators in Alabama Senate voted to highlight this draconian abortion ban, without exceptions for rape or incest. The governor of this state is republican Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey.

Ivey signs the bill. This bill will become the most restrictive abortion law in the country. The next states to pass such a bill are Georgia and Ohio which bans abortions after six weeks.

Last year 15 states adopted 27 new constraints on abortion and family planning. The definitive objective of many of the designers of these regulations, and the abortion prohibitions passed in Ohio, Georgia and Alabama, is to manipulate state legislation to get Roe v. Wade overturned by the Supreme Court, which is now slanted in conservatives’ support.

To be clear, this is not an aim that left-wingers have understood, but one that legislators have come right out and identified on the record.

Outlawing abortion is about controlling women’s liberty, independence, mobility, sexuality and self-determination. Regulations like the ones passed in Georgia, Mississippi and Alabama ― laws that totally disregard things that essentially diminish abortions, like all-inclusive sex education, available birth control, and better social services for parents and children ― are, quite factually, violence on females’ lives.

Does Trumps new immigration plan sway Republicans from not addressing DACA?

The White House is planning to discharge a broad outline of recommended immigration reforms targeted at unifying congressional Republicans about the concern, following weeks of conversations between senior adviser Jared Kushner and a lot of conservative teams.

However, the proposition is short of trustworthy information and omits discourse on the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program that Democrats have frequently stated they desire to solve.

President Donald Trump is scheduled to reveal the master plan Thursday. The White House is advertising the blueprint as responding to border protection and shifting toward a merit-based immigration structure, which provides personal preference to highly trained and educated persons.

However, the release of the innovative concepts comes among discord inside the Trump current administration over how to deal with immigration guidelines.

The discord led to the latest departure of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen, who also was a part of primary interactions in the White House concerning an immigration strategy.

The White House approach to change the country’s immigration structure likewise comes up against the backdrop of the steep uptick of worries on the southern national boundaries. Additional individuals have been apprehended unlawfully crossing the US-Mexico boundary this fiscal year compared to any year since 2009, as outlined by Customs and Border Protection statistics.

America has been fighting for equal right since it became a country, do you believe that the old Equal Rights Amendment is not viable today?

Equal Rights Amendment resolutions are introduced in every Congress meeting since 1923. This period of Congress is virtually no different. There seemed to be a hearing on the Equal Rights Amendment in the House currently. Many will attempt to inform an individual that ratification is just around the corner. On the other hand, the Equal Rights Amendment they may be speaking about has vanished. That has not necessarily halted the Alice Paul Institute, for example, from conversing up a unique three state technique concerning ratifying the 1972 Equal Rights Amendment.

The motion was put before the states and approved by 35 for ratification. Close to four decades Social Justice Activists persuaded Nevada And Illinois to ratify the Amendment which left the Amendment one state of being added to the Constitution, the activist would like us to believe. That is not the case.

Five reasons why the Equal Rights Amendment sent to the states in 1972 is no longer viable.

First, it left Congress with a due date of seven years concerning state ratification. The time clock happened to run out on the 1972 Equal Rights Amendment along with 35 states on board. Active supporters and workers would like people to disregard that reality. Second, Congress later approved, and President Carter authorized in 1978 an expansion to 1982. The active supporters and workers would like people to overlook that due date also. The Congressional Research Service records that this expansion indicates that a neverending ratification interval is probably not allowable.In other thoughts, the expansion that Equal Rights Amendment supporters wanted in 1978 undercuts their particular situation currently that each ratification deadlines happen to be unacceptable. Furthermore, no added states ratified the Equal Rights Amendment concerning 1979 and the end of the prolonged ratification due date in 1982.

Third, five states that in the beginning ratified the Equal Rights Amendment ended up rescinding their authorization before the initial due date involving seven years. Active supporters and workers declare the rescissions are unacceptable and really should be overlooked; however, it is certainly not easy. Article V of the Constitution provides that amendments could be recommended by way of a convention referred to us by our elected representatives “around the application of the legislatures to two-thirds of the number of states.” It has been debatable whether a particular state could make or rescind the current application.

Many groups endorse the Equal Rights Amendment signed a letter which meant they were trying to rescind Article V convention. There of these stated tried later on to rescind their applications for an Article V convention. It is a difficult decision for a state to change its minds about a convention, but not on a proposed amendment.

Fourth, Equal Rights Amendment activists prefer to explain that this 27th Amendment, the newest conjunction with the Constitution, has been suggested in 1789 but not ultimately ratified till May 1992. What are the 47 years given that Congress delivered the Equal Rights Amendment to the states, these people inquire, as compared to the 203 years involving proposal and ratification of the 27th Amendment? On this concern, on the other hand, there exists a variation with a massive difference in that the 27th Amendment had zero ratification due date.

Fifth, several courtroom judgments weaken the idea the fact that Equal Rights Amendment delivered to the states in 1972 continues to be in existence. The Supreme Court made the decision Dillon versus Gloss in 1921, two years before the very first Equal Rights Amendment was recommended. As the Congressional Research Service had summarized it, the justices presented that this ratification of the Constitutional Amendment needs to happen within a reasonable period following the Amendment is recommended. That case included the 18th Amendment which, like the 1972 Equal Rights Amendment, had a ratification due date regarding seven years.

In the 1939 decision in Coleman versus Miller, the Supreme Court presented that several components assist in identifying a realistic periodto ratify an amendment for the Constitution. Most of all, though, the justices declared that Congress, not the courts, ought to decide. Congress did exactly that in 1972 and 1978, figuring out that a maximum of Ten years was initially sufficient to determine that three fourths from the states wanted the Equal Rights Amendment in the Constitution. The truth is that they failed to.

In the 1982 decision in Idaho versus Freeman, a district court presented that the authentic Equal Rights Amendment ratification due date seemed to be constitutional. The due date expansion itself was not constitutional, and the ratifications rescissions happen to be legitimate. The Supreme Court left this judgment once the 1982 ratification due date passed and made the case moot. However, the justices failed to tackle the value of the findings from the lower court.

Most likely the active supporters and workers may have far better fortune with the quantity of Equal Rights Amendment settlements launched this season. However, it is merely fictional the Equal Rights Amendment proposed throughout the 92nd Congress is still on the affirmation trail currently. This has been inactive at least THIRTY-SEVEN years.

Do you believe that tolerance and civility, not love, will heal our society?

In “Love Your Enemies,” author and American Enterprise Institute President Arthur Brooks offers a formula for healing a country divided: “Go find someone with whom you disagree; listen reflectively, and take care of him or her with respect and love. The rest will flow naturally from there.”

We build a good society; Brooks states, the way we build a great marriage: through love.

Brooks is right that how we speak to one another concerns. The language of contempt dissolves the trust. Contempt drives out any impulse we might have toward empathy and understanding, and it replaces reasoned argument with litmus tests for ideological purity.

Moving toward greater empathy, understanding, and intellectual openness will improve the quality of our public discourse and make us healthier, happier plus better human beings.

However, the shift that Brooks is championing will not be inspired by the exalted virtue of really like. It will be the fruit of the less-exalted tempered virtues of civility and tolerance.

A defender of Brooks’ thesis might say that I am splitting hairs – that it does not matter if we use the vocabulary of love or the language of civility and tolerance. However, words make a difference.

If we uncritically accept as the appropriate standard for the good society and toss aside civility and tolerance as “garbage standards,” we set ourselves up for failure.

To begin, as an expectation for the broader society, love is too tall an order. We learned this long ago from moral philosophers like David Hume and Adam Smith, who observed that there are cognitive limits to how far we can extend our sympathy.

Genuine love requires close-in local knowledge that we cannot cultivate beyond a relatively small circle of family and friends.

The good news, though, is that love is not needed to achieve the good society. On this point, Nobel Laureate F.The. Hayek offered a significant distinction between the social norms that are essential to the small intimate purchase of known friends and family and the norms essential to the extended order of the broader community.

The right standard for the small band may very well be love. It is in this sphere that we have enough local knowledge to attend to particular needs in nuanced ways. However, as Hayek argued, if we apply this regular to society as a whole, we will destroy it.

Brooks tells us that expectations of civility and tolerance are too low of a bar; that if we want “true unity” in America, we must find our “shared whys.” However, unity is the wrong goal.

A country of self-governing citizens is not one of the shared ends; it is among shared rules: individual liberty, equality before the law, property rights and impersonal rules of contract, for example.

The cultural norms that correspond to such rules are those like civility and tolerance, norms that can be applied generally, without a great deal of close-in, local knowledge.

Expectations of civility and tolerance are usually admittedly cold and impersonal. That is why they are not sufficient standards for, say, a happy family life. However, it is their impersonal quality that makes them appropriate requirements for the broader modern society.

As cultural norms, civility and tolerance allow us to pursue our different ends without checking in with one another, without any expectation that people are aligning our beliefs and actions with some shared purpose.

Once we commit to unity – even as a direction and aspiration – the individual who diverges from the pack will always be seen as impeding progress toward the ideal. Moreover, therein is situated a formula for cruelty.

Though it may seem counterintuitive, it is the requirement of civility and tolerance that sets the foundation for the civil society, one characterized by pluralism and human thriving.

By not expecting more than we can offer, by not insisting on enjoying and unity of purpose, we leave the social space contestable, open to countless conversations, out of which we have the best chance of forging bonds of mutual respect and trust.

Brooks is correct that if we are going to overcome the culture of contempt, we need better conversational ethics, such as a commitment to humility, regard and knowledge-seeking curiosity in the face of disagreement. However, we do not need love to cultivate these practices. We need the tempered virtues of civility and tolerance.