Training against an ideology, religion or nationality; why?
Certainly, ill will for doing any action isn't acceptable and those who have violent view against a religion, ideology or nationality are convict because it's all against social democracy and liberalism. But when an ideology, religion or nationality becomes a weapon for war, expansionism or creation of fascism and totalitarianism, there's no way except putting down the practical weapon.
When Marxism becomes an ideology in order to war and conquest other countries, is there any other solution except attack to their weapon?! Or the same in Islam with Taliban or Arabs with Pan-Arabism and Turks with Pan-Turkism were going to create fascism!
International community are damaged by Fascism, so it's inevitable they resist against all forms of fascism including
extremist nationalism, ideology or an religion that may lead to the fascism.
However, the author believes religion support the public order because many crimes and indecent acts considered as sin in religious books and actually prohibited. So, making decision on any religion isn't easy until it's not against the society.
Friday, February 28, 2014
Thursday, February 27, 2014
Venezuela: Realism is a Necessity
Venezuela has a strategic position in Latin America because of its oil sources.
But an independent Venezuela, means the state which it takes its foreign policies free from Latin American orders, can change balance of power in the continent in order to its benefit or Russia`s by using power of its oil sources.
So, it can't be as a reliable sovereignty in Latin America until don`t adopt a consistent approach in political field.
However today, both economic and political independence of Venezuela passes to critical stage. A country that has ability to reconstruct the broken economy of Venezuela, took this strategic country`s political steering. U.S, already, has transformed the military defeat to political victory in Vietnam by the same manner.
However today, both economic and political independence of Venezuela passes to critical stage. A country that has ability to reconstruct the broken economy of Venezuela, took this strategic country`s political steering. U.S, already, has transformed the military defeat to political victory in Vietnam by the same manner.
Wednesday, February 26, 2014
An open letter to Kristopher
All of us are aware of plagiarism, and we know that literary works of unknown authors than the others are at more risk of plagiarism, and plagiarism of some parts of various authors` literary works in order to forming a complete book is most common.
Also we know, many institutions now use plagiarism detection software to uncover plagiarism. But recent concern in this subject is about another form of plagiarism which is without any victim. Another form of plagiarism is happened that is called “selling the ownership of literary works”. In this way, the victim is the original author, that he/she is satisfied of occurrence of the crime. This kind of plagiarism is when one of author`s friend or colleagues writes instead of the original author but the literary work is written in name of who never write that. Another way that it may happen is when an author sells his /her literary work, and the customer writes the opus in his/her name.
What has forced me to write this open letter is that some (!) of dishonest authors rudely claimed "80% of authors do the same".
Public trust is a bigger investment than can be trade with that; respect is not reward of cheating the people.
The audiences will be aware of what we know if they see the situation as really is or in other word circumstance element.
Trust in your ideas instead of my words or others; because we believe in the Common law, and the Common law believes in people`s votes.
Also we know, many institutions now use plagiarism detection software to uncover plagiarism. But recent concern in this subject is about another form of plagiarism which is without any victim. Another form of plagiarism is happened that is called “selling the ownership of literary works”. In this way, the victim is the original author, that he/she is satisfied of occurrence of the crime. This kind of plagiarism is when one of author`s friend or colleagues writes instead of the original author but the literary work is written in name of who never write that. Another way that it may happen is when an author sells his /her literary work, and the customer writes the opus in his/her name.
What has forced me to write this open letter is that some (!) of dishonest authors rudely claimed "80% of authors do the same".
Public trust is a bigger investment than can be trade with that; respect is not reward of cheating the people.
The audiences will be aware of what we know if they see the situation as really is or in other word circumstance element.
Trust in your ideas instead of my words or others; because we believe in the Common law, and the Common law believes in people`s votes.
Sunday, February 23, 2014
Fiction Method (Part 3)
When you read a fiction romance category or horror, certainly you know what to expect going, then form beginning you predict the basic actions of story. Since scope of action is predictable in certain subjects; but reactions are unpredictable. Scope of reactions in one subject is much wider than action's one in the same subject. But due to this matter, novice authors' fictions are assembly of other fictions which has same subject. So, criticism of such letters is unnecessary because the only difference between these fictions and other ones are name of persons or places.
Friday, February 21, 2014
Father and Mother are the Rights of the Child
Today is our share and tomorrow is for today's children. I don't say that children are the heroes of tomorrow so look after them because they might have a different decision for the world. We want to give children, their rights and don't want to judge about future because the goodness and the badness of what doesn't belong to us, isn't ours, and the difficulty and the easiness of what doesn't belong to us, isn't ours.
Are the children that find themselves in the orphanages or the children who don't know who their parents were, the consequences of tsunami, earthquake or war?
No, none of it is true. In fact they're the consequences of the fathers that were forced to mature by the laws of nature. They're the consequences of the mothers who might bravely defend their interests but easily forget the rights of the child they bear in their womb.
Paragraph 1 article 18 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child states:
States Parties shall use their best efforts to ensure recognition of the principle that both parents have common responsibilities for the upbringing and development of the child. Parents or, as the case may be, legal guardians, have the primary responsibility for the upbringing and development of the child. The best interests of the child will be their basic concern.
The lack of the presence of the law that is the fulfiller of the word "ensure" is felt. I forgot to mention that the congress didn't even pass this convention!
Paragraph (D) article 16 of the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women states:
The same rights and responsibilities as parents, irrespective of their marital status, in matters relating to their children; in all cases the interests of the children shall be paramount.
In both of these conventions the term "responsibility" has been used. The question is: what's ensuring of performing this responsibility?!
Proper laws are passed for people escaping from paying taxes, but are there any similar rules passed for people escaping from the responsibility of parental responsibility?!
Are the children that find themselves in the orphanages or the children who don't know who their parents were, the consequences of tsunami, earthquake or war?
No, none of it is true. In fact they're the consequences of the fathers that were forced to mature by the laws of nature. They're the consequences of the mothers who might bravely defend their interests but easily forget the rights of the child they bear in their womb.
Paragraph 1 article 18 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child states:
States Parties shall use their best efforts to ensure recognition of the principle that both parents have common responsibilities for the upbringing and development of the child. Parents or, as the case may be, legal guardians, have the primary responsibility for the upbringing and development of the child. The best interests of the child will be their basic concern.
The lack of the presence of the law that is the fulfiller of the word "ensure" is felt. I forgot to mention that the congress didn't even pass this convention!
Paragraph (D) article 16 of the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women states:
The same rights and responsibilities as parents, irrespective of their marital status, in matters relating to their children; in all cases the interests of the children shall be paramount.
In both of these conventions the term "responsibility" has been used. The question is: what's ensuring of performing this responsibility?!
Proper laws are passed for people escaping from paying taxes, but are there any similar rules passed for people escaping from the responsibility of parental responsibility?!
Tuesday, February 18, 2014
Children's Rights and Sex Industry
No one is forced to accept all of his/her rights. Nobody can be forced to defend his/her violated rights, but renunciation of rights is only allowed to the extent, that it's not against public order and the rights of others.
Article 6 of Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women states:
States Parties shall take all appropriate measures, including legislation, to suppress all forms of traffic in women and exploitation of prostitution of women.
Interpretation: The term "all forms of" was used in the above article. Thus, this means that this article includes all the forms, whose natures are based upon trafficking in women (sex industry).
But surely the purpose of founding this convention as it's clear from its title is to eliminate discriminations against women, and this article is written to defend the rights of women. Therefore, since women's rights are of the rights of adult person, then they have the freedom to acceptance or renunciation of their rights.
Regarding children's rights, an article similar to this has been written over the rights of children which are attended by Convention of the Rights of the Child in article 34:
States Parties undertake to protect the child from all forms of sexual exploitation and sexual abuse. For these purposes, States Parties shall in particular take all appropriate national, bilateral and multilateral measures to prevent:
(a) The inducement or coercion of a child to engage in any unlawful sexual activity;
(b) The exploitative use of children in prostitution or other unlawful sexual practices;
(c) The exploitative use of children in pornographic performances and materials.
The important point is, due to the low age of children, the fundamental responsibility of defending their rights, is on the shoulders of the society (the government, court, adopters etc.).Thus a child cannot renounce most of his/her rights. For example, a child cannot enter the pornography on his/her own will. In such cases, his/her will is invalid.
Considering that paragraph 1 article 18 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child states the following regarding the responsibilities of the parents or the keepers of the child:
States Parties undertake to respect the right of the child to preserve his or her identity, including nationality, name and family relations as recognized by law without unlawful interference.
And article 21 of this same convention states the following on adoption:
States Parties that recognize and/or permit the system of adoption shall ensure that the best interests of the child shall be the paramount consideration…
And also paragraph (B), article 5 of Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women states:
To ensure that family education includes a proper understanding of maternity as a social function and the recognition of the common responsibility of men and women in the upbringing and development of their children, it being understood that the interest of the children is the primordial consideration in all cases.
And paragraph (D), article 16 of this same convention which respectively states:
The same rights and responsibilities as parents, irrespective of their marital status, in matters relating to their children; in all cases the interests of the children shall be paramount.
And also paragraph (F) of that same article states:
The same rights and responsibilities with regard to guardianship, wardship, trusteeship and adoption of children, or similar institutions where these concepts exist in national legislation; in all cases the interests of the children shall be paramount.
We conclude that the interests and the rights of the child in all cases, including the cases with conflicts between the interests of the child and the rights of the parents, have priority.
Considering the above issues, we return to article 34 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The key point in this article is that, the convention used the term "prevent" for defending the rights of the child in this subject. Prevent means, preventative protection. Preventative protection is on the opposite side of therapeutic protection. Article 39 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, is an example of therapeutic protection which states:
States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to promote physical and psychological recovery and social reintegration of a child victim of: any form of neglect, exploitation, or abuse; torture or any other form of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; or armed conflicts. Such recovery and reintegration shall take place in an environment which fosters the health, self-respect and dignity of the child.
The interests of the child have priorities in all cases, then isn't giving a child to a mother or a father that are active in the sex industry, against the preventative protection which is included in article 34 of this convention?!
In other hand, plurality of intercourse infects many active individuals in the sex industry, with the HIV virus. The important point in this disease is long incubation period. It may take between 2 and 3 weeks to years while test show nothing of infection in infected body meanwhile HIV-positive person is infectious during this period of time.
Which one has priority in the contrast between the freedom of sex industry and the risk of infection with HIV for children by the infected mothers?!
Article 6 of Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women states:
States Parties shall take all appropriate measures, including legislation, to suppress all forms of traffic in women and exploitation of prostitution of women.
Interpretation: The term "all forms of" was used in the above article. Thus, this means that this article includes all the forms, whose natures are based upon trafficking in women (sex industry).
But surely the purpose of founding this convention as it's clear from its title is to eliminate discriminations against women, and this article is written to defend the rights of women. Therefore, since women's rights are of the rights of adult person, then they have the freedom to acceptance or renunciation of their rights.
Regarding children's rights, an article similar to this has been written over the rights of children which are attended by Convention of the Rights of the Child in article 34:
States Parties undertake to protect the child from all forms of sexual exploitation and sexual abuse. For these purposes, States Parties shall in particular take all appropriate national, bilateral and multilateral measures to prevent:
(a) The inducement or coercion of a child to engage in any unlawful sexual activity;
(b) The exploitative use of children in prostitution or other unlawful sexual practices;
(c) The exploitative use of children in pornographic performances and materials.
The important point is, due to the low age of children, the fundamental responsibility of defending their rights, is on the shoulders of the society (the government, court, adopters etc.).Thus a child cannot renounce most of his/her rights. For example, a child cannot enter the pornography on his/her own will. In such cases, his/her will is invalid.
Considering that paragraph 1 article 18 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child states the following regarding the responsibilities of the parents or the keepers of the child:
States Parties undertake to respect the right of the child to preserve his or her identity, including nationality, name and family relations as recognized by law without unlawful interference.
And article 21 of this same convention states the following on adoption:
States Parties that recognize and/or permit the system of adoption shall ensure that the best interests of the child shall be the paramount consideration…
And also paragraph (B), article 5 of Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women states:
To ensure that family education includes a proper understanding of maternity as a social function and the recognition of the common responsibility of men and women in the upbringing and development of their children, it being understood that the interest of the children is the primordial consideration in all cases.
And paragraph (D), article 16 of this same convention which respectively states:
The same rights and responsibilities as parents, irrespective of their marital status, in matters relating to their children; in all cases the interests of the children shall be paramount.
And also paragraph (F) of that same article states:
The same rights and responsibilities with regard to guardianship, wardship, trusteeship and adoption of children, or similar institutions where these concepts exist in national legislation; in all cases the interests of the children shall be paramount.
We conclude that the interests and the rights of the child in all cases, including the cases with conflicts between the interests of the child and the rights of the parents, have priority.
Considering the above issues, we return to article 34 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The key point in this article is that, the convention used the term "prevent" for defending the rights of the child in this subject. Prevent means, preventative protection. Preventative protection is on the opposite side of therapeutic protection. Article 39 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, is an example of therapeutic protection which states:
States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to promote physical and psychological recovery and social reintegration of a child victim of: any form of neglect, exploitation, or abuse; torture or any other form of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; or armed conflicts. Such recovery and reintegration shall take place in an environment which fosters the health, self-respect and dignity of the child.
The interests of the child have priorities in all cases, then isn't giving a child to a mother or a father that are active in the sex industry, against the preventative protection which is included in article 34 of this convention?!
In other hand, plurality of intercourse infects many active individuals in the sex industry, with the HIV virus. The important point in this disease is long incubation period. It may take between 2 and 3 weeks to years while test show nothing of infection in infected body meanwhile HIV-positive person is infectious during this period of time.
Which one has priority in the contrast between the freedom of sex industry and the risk of infection with HIV for children by the infected mothers?!
Saturday, February 15, 2014
Adoption: Right or Duty?
As long as this question remains unanswered, the purpose of adoption institution will also not be unfolded. The question is that, whether adoption is the right, or the duty of the society?
Paragraph 2 article 5 of Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women answers this ambiguity:
To ensure that family education includes a proper understanding of maternity as a social function and the recognition of the common responsibility of men and women in the upbringing and development of their children, it being understood that the interest of the children is the primordial consideration in all cases.
Key points: the role of maternity is a social function. Up-bringing of the child is a co-responsibility of man and woman (and not necessarily father and mother). The benefits of the child (and not only his/her rights) have priority in all cases.
Article 21 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child states the following on adoption:
States Parties that recognize and/or permit the system of adoption shall ensure that the best interests of the child shall be the paramount consideration...
Key point: priority of children's best interests, in line with implementing this institution.
The highly important point in these conventions is that, the term "interests" was used instead of "rights" to children's advantage. But what's the difference between interests, and rights?
I address this difference by providing an instance. According to the universal declaration of Human Rights, having a standard life is your right, but if the status of your life is better than that standard, then that becomes your interest.
When it's stated that child's interests have priority in all cases, then that means, if the court has to choose between one of the two options, and one option is society's rights while the other is child's interests, then the chosen option, has to be the child's interests.
It's clear that the purpose is to defend the interests of the children, thus just as the role of maternity is recognized as a social function to protect the interests of the child; adoption is also considered a social function.
It may be claimed that adoption is both a duty and a right just as the role of maternity is both a duty and a right.
Paragraph 1 article 9 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child states the following:
States Parties shall ensure that a child shall not be separated from his or her parents against their will, except when competent authorities subject to judicial review determine, in accordance with applicable law and procedures, that such separation is necessary for the best interests of the child. Such determination may be necessary in a particular case such as one involving abuse or neglect of the child by the parents, or one where the parents are living separately and a decision must be made as to the child's place of residence.
Key points: the interests of the child precede the parental rights of the parents. The guarantee from the membered states is that, the children will not be separated from their parents, despite their own will.
There are two cases in which the child is separated from his/her family: Juridical compulsion for protecting his/her rights and the other one is personal will. Thus, the role of maternity is a social function and the principal right is under the dominance of the two individuals: the child and the court.
So, the institution of adoption is a social function for protecting the interests of the children.
Adoption can be called substitution of the child. That means, a child that has no parents and is socially (and not naturally) no body's child, takes the place of a substituted child by being adopted into a family. And his/her keepers will become substituted parents and will have duties same as the duties of the real parents.
Is a gay couple, eligible to have the capacity of adoption?
-No
Why?
Paragraph 2 article 5 of the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women has declared the up-bringing of the child, the co-responsibility of woman and man. The key point is that the responsibility of the child's upbringing should be given to a family consisting of a man and a woman, when the child has no parents, or doesn't have a father or a mother.
Also, since the child suffers from the lack of parents and since the purpose of the institution of adoption is to protect the interests of the child and to fill the gaps in his/her life, so the family that adopts the child should be the gap-filler of the lack of parents. That means they should provide the affection and spiritual needs of the child. Otherwise, the orphanages can shelter and protect the children.
It should be noted that adoption, is actually the substitution of the child. This title of child's substitution is achieved, when that family is naturally able to breed. Is a group (or a family) consisting of two women or two men, naturally able to breed?!
Is a child that is adopted into such a group able to take the place of a substituted child?!
Paragraph 2 article 5 of Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women answers this ambiguity:
To ensure that family education includes a proper understanding of maternity as a social function and the recognition of the common responsibility of men and women in the upbringing and development of their children, it being understood that the interest of the children is the primordial consideration in all cases.
Key points: the role of maternity is a social function. Up-bringing of the child is a co-responsibility of man and woman (and not necessarily father and mother). The benefits of the child (and not only his/her rights) have priority in all cases.
Article 21 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child states the following on adoption:
States Parties that recognize and/or permit the system of adoption shall ensure that the best interests of the child shall be the paramount consideration...
Key point: priority of children's best interests, in line with implementing this institution.
The highly important point in these conventions is that, the term "interests" was used instead of "rights" to children's advantage. But what's the difference between interests, and rights?
I address this difference by providing an instance. According to the universal declaration of Human Rights, having a standard life is your right, but if the status of your life is better than that standard, then that becomes your interest.
When it's stated that child's interests have priority in all cases, then that means, if the court has to choose between one of the two options, and one option is society's rights while the other is child's interests, then the chosen option, has to be the child's interests.
It's clear that the purpose is to defend the interests of the children, thus just as the role of maternity is recognized as a social function to protect the interests of the child; adoption is also considered a social function.
It may be claimed that adoption is both a duty and a right just as the role of maternity is both a duty and a right.
Paragraph 1 article 9 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child states the following:
States Parties shall ensure that a child shall not be separated from his or her parents against their will, except when competent authorities subject to judicial review determine, in accordance with applicable law and procedures, that such separation is necessary for the best interests of the child. Such determination may be necessary in a particular case such as one involving abuse or neglect of the child by the parents, or one where the parents are living separately and a decision must be made as to the child's place of residence.
Key points: the interests of the child precede the parental rights of the parents. The guarantee from the membered states is that, the children will not be separated from their parents, despite their own will.
There are two cases in which the child is separated from his/her family: Juridical compulsion for protecting his/her rights and the other one is personal will. Thus, the role of maternity is a social function and the principal right is under the dominance of the two individuals: the child and the court.
So, the institution of adoption is a social function for protecting the interests of the children.
Adoption can be called substitution of the child. That means, a child that has no parents and is socially (and not naturally) no body's child, takes the place of a substituted child by being adopted into a family. And his/her keepers will become substituted parents and will have duties same as the duties of the real parents.
Is a gay couple, eligible to have the capacity of adoption?
-No
Why?
Paragraph 2 article 5 of the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women has declared the up-bringing of the child, the co-responsibility of woman and man. The key point is that the responsibility of the child's upbringing should be given to a family consisting of a man and a woman, when the child has no parents, or doesn't have a father or a mother.
Also, since the child suffers from the lack of parents and since the purpose of the institution of adoption is to protect the interests of the child and to fill the gaps in his/her life, so the family that adopts the child should be the gap-filler of the lack of parents. That means they should provide the affection and spiritual needs of the child. Otherwise, the orphanages can shelter and protect the children.
It should be noted that adoption, is actually the substitution of the child. This title of child's substitution is achieved, when that family is naturally able to breed. Is a group (or a family) consisting of two women or two men, naturally able to breed?!
Is a child that is adopted into such a group able to take the place of a substituted child?!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)