FUNDATIA IOAN BARBUS LOGO SM

Drepturile universale ale omului islamului

Etichete:

În islam omul are un singur drept. Dreptul la sharia.

Eleanor RooseveltÎn acest an aniversăm şase decenii de la adoptarea Declaraţiei Universale a Drepturilor Omului, ratificată de Adunarea Organizaţiei Naţiunilor Unite la Paris, pe 10 decembrie 1948. Declaraţia proclamă în 30 de articole un set de drepturi universal valabile pentru orice persoană, indiferent de naţionalitate, rasă, religie. Articolul 19 afirmă simplu şi clar:

Oricine are dreptul la libertate de opinie şi exprimare. Acest drept include libertatea de a avea opinii fără a fi supus la interferenţe şi de a căuta, primi şi disemina informaţii şi idei prin orice mijloace şi oriunde, indiferent de frontiere.

Începînd din 28 martie 2008, acest drept a fost în practică suspendat de ONU şi ideea unor drepturi universal valabile a fost serios discreditată. Corectare. A fost serios modificată. Drepturile omului aşa cum sînt înţelese şi aplicate în tradiţia occidentală sînt pe cale să fie înlocuite cu drepturile islamului. Iată de ce.

În cadrul ONU funcţionează Consiliul Drepturilor Omului. Înfiinţat în 2006, rolul său este să promoveze respectul faţă de drepturile adoptate în Declaraţia din 1948 şi să adreseze situaţiile în care acestea sînt violate. În cadrul acestui consiliu există un număr de Raportori Speciali, al căror mandat constă în implementarea misiunii consiliului pentru un singur drept sau un grup restrîns de drepturi înrudite.

În martie a avut loc a 7-a sesiune a Consiliului Drepturilor Omului şi în ultima zi a sesiunii a fost adoptat un amendament la regulamentul de activitate al Raportorului Special pentru Libertatea de Exprimare. Acest amendament, introdus de Pakistan din partea Organizaţiei Conferinţei Islamice — formată din 57 de state şi reprezentînd cel mai puternic bloc de vot din ONU — stipulează următoarea noutate:

“… to report on instances where the abuse of the right of freedom of expression constitutes an act of racial or religious discrimination, taking into account Articles 19(3) and 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and General Comment 15 of the Committee on Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination which stipulates that the prohibition of the dissemination of all ideas based upon racial superiority or hatred is compatible with the freedom of opinion and expression.”

Petition — 40 civil society organizations call on the Human Rights Council to protect special mandate on Freedom of Expression


Amendamentul a fost votat cu 27 de voturi pentru, 15 împotrivă şi 3 abţineri. În efect, rolul Raportorului pentru libertatea de exprimare a fost schimbat cu 180 de grade. În loc să apere dreptul pe care îl reprezintă, de acum încolo se va ocupa cu limitarea acestui drept.

La prima vedere, acest amendament pare rezonabil. Există situaţii în care afirmarea dreptului la exprimare liberă constituie abuz, prin încălcarea altor drepturi fundamentale. Însă ONU dispune deja de o serie de mecanisme a căror menire este să balanseze dreptul la exprimare liberă cu situaţiile de abuz ale acestui drept. Amendamentul forţat de ţările islamice nu era necesar.

De exemplu, există Acordul Internaţional al Drepturilor Civice şi Politice, ale cărui articole 19 şi 20 stabilesc standardele de aplicabilitate ale dreptului la exprimare liberă.

International law provides for a clear and carefully calibrated framework of standards in this area, found in Articles 19 and 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which rule out incitement to hatred on the basis of nationality, race or religion but which protect criticism, including criticisms of politics, beliefs systems or religion. In particular, the provisions on protection of reputation contained in international human rights law are designed to protect individuals, not abstract values or institutions.

While international law permits certain restrictions on speech to protect reputation of individuals, these restrictions are not extended to cover religions per se. International law does not entirely rule out restrictions on speech to protect religion but circumscribes the precise scope of such restrictions. Religious believers have a right not to be discriminated against on the basis of their beliefs, but religion itself cannot be set free from criticism.

The equality of all ideas and convictions before the law and the right to debate them freely is the keystone of democracy. As international human rights courts have stressed, freedom of expression is applicable not only to “information” or “ideas” that are favourably received, but also to those that may offend, shock or disturb any or all of us. The current amendment may be understood as an attempt to undermine this well-established framework.

Petition — 40 civil society organizations call on the Human Rights Council to protect special mandate on Freedom of Expression

De asemenea, există şi Raportorul Special pentru Libertatea Religioasă. Orice abuz al libertăţii de exprimare încălcînd dreptul la libertate religioasă cade în sarcina acestuia. Prin adoptarea acestui amendament s-a creat o duplicare de responsabilităţi în domeniul restrictiv şi a fost fost substanţial micşorat rolul protector al Raportorului pentru libertatea de exprimare.

Delegaţia canadiană, sponsorul principal al rezoluţiei pentru revizuirea atribuţiilor Raportorului pentru libertatea de exprimare, s-a opus ferm introducerii acestui amendament, declarînd:

“Requesting the Special Rapporteur to report on abuses of [this right] would turn the mandate on its head. Instead of promoting freedom of expression the Special Rapporteur would be policing its exercise … If this amendment is adopted, Canada will withdraw its sponsorship from the main resolution.”

Vote on freedom of expression marks the end of Universal Human Rights — International Humanist and Ethical Union

Poziţia canadiană a fost susţinută de India, Uniunea Europeană, Marea Britanie (în nume propriu şi în calitate de reprezentant al SUA şi Australia), Brazilia, Bolivia, Guatemala şi Elveţia. Amendamentul islamic a fost criticat şi de o coaliţie de 40 de ONG-uri prezente la sesiunea Consiliului. În preziua votului, această coaliţie, formată majoritar din organizaţii non-guvernamentale din ţări musulmane, a difuzat o petiţie tuturor participanţilor la lucrările Consiliului, în încercarea de a atrage atenţia asupra efectelor nocive ale amendamentului propus de Organizaţia Conferinţei Islamice. Din păcate, eforturile delegaţiilor guvernamentale şi protestul celor non-guvernamentale nu au putut schimba deznodămîntul votului.

Validarea acestui amendament reprezintă un succes major al Organizaţiei Conferinţei Islamice şi face parte dintr-un efort mai vechi de a transforma ONU într-o curea de transmisie a intereselor ţărilor musulmane. Sudan, Iran, Pakistan, Arabia Saudita au criticat în repetate rînduri faptul că ONU subscrie la Declaraţia din 1948 pe motiv că aceasta reprezintă o viziune seculara şi iudeo-creştină a drepturilor omului, care nu ţine cont de cultura şi tradiţiile islamice. Toate statele musulmane consideră Declaraţia din 1948 profund incompatibilă cu viziunea islamică şi în consecinţă Organizaţia Conferinţei Islamice a adoptat şi dat publicităţii, pe 5 august 1990, propria declaraţie a drepturilor omului, la care au aderat toate cele 57 de ţări membre.

Declaraţiile de la Paris şi Cairo garantează în linii mari acelaşi set de drepturi deci, aparent, sînt echivalente. Formularea diferă, stilul ornat al drepturilor islamice reflectînd mult mai fidel sensibilităţile musulmane. La fel şi repetiţia unei anume sintagme. Dar mai bine dăm cuvîntul celor două declaraţii.

  • Paris — Articolul 1
    All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
  • Cairo — Articolul 1
    (a) All human beings form one family whose members are united by submission to God and descent from Adam. All men are equal in terms of basic human dignity and basic obligations and responsibilities, without any discrimination on the grounds of race, colour, language, sex, religious belief, political affiliation, social status or other considerations. True faith is the guarantee for enhancing such dignity along the path to human perfection.
    (b) All human beings are God’s subjects, and the most loved by him are those who are most useful to the rest of His subjects, and no one has superiority over another except on the basis of piety and good deeds.
  • Paris — Articolul 3
    Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
  • Cairo — Articolul 2
    (a) Life is a God-given gift and the right to life is guaranteed to every human being. It is the duty of individuals, societies and states to protect this right from any violation, and it is prohibited to take away life except for a Shari’ah-prescribed reason.
    (d) Safety from bodily harm is a guaranteed right. It is the duty of the state to safeguard it, and it is prohibited to breach it without a Shari’ah-prescribed reason.
  • Paris — Articolele 13 si 14
    (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
    (2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.
    (1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
    (2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
  • Cairo — Articolul 12
    Every man shall have the right, within the framework of Shari’ah, to free movement and to select his place of residence whether inside or outside his country and, if persecuted, is entitled to seek asylum in another country. The country of refuge shall ensure his protection until he reaches safety, unless asylum is motivated by an act which Shari’ah regards as a crime.
  • Paris — Articolul 26
    (3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.
  • Cairo — Articolul 7
    (b) Parents and those in such like capacity have the right to choose the type of education they desire for their children, provided they take into consideration the interest and future of the children in accordance with ethical values and the principles of the Shari’ah.
    (c) Both parents are entitled to certain rights from their children, and relatives are entitled to rights from their kin, in accordance with the tenets of the Shari’ah.
  • Paris — Articolul 26
    (1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
    (2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
  • Cairo — Articolul 9
    (a) The quest for knowledge is an obligation, and the provision of education is a duty for society and the State. The State shall ensure the availability of ways and means to acquire education and shall guarantee educational diversity in the interest of society so as to enable man to be acquainted with the religion of Islam and the facts of the Universe for the benefit of mankind.
    (b) Every human being has the right to receive both religious and worldly education from the various institutions of education and guidance, including the family, the school, the university, the media, etc., and in such an integrated and balanced manner as to develop his personality, strengthen his faith in God and promote his respect for and defence of both rights and obligations.
  • Paris — Articolul 18
    Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
  • Cairo — Articolul 10
    Islam is the religion of unspoiled nature. It is prohibited to exercise any form of compulsion on man or to exploit his poverty or ignorance in order to convert him to another religion or to atheism.
  • Paris — Articolul 4
    No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.
  • Cairo — Articolul 11
    (a) Human beings are born free, and no one has the right to enslave, humiliate, oppress or exploit them, and there can be no subjugation but to God the Most-High.
  • Paris — Articolul 23
    (2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
  • Cairo — Articolul 14
    Everyone shall have the right to legitimate gains without monopolization, deceit or harm to oneself or to others. Usury (riba) is absolutely prohibited.
  • Paris — Articolul 17
    (1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
    (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.
  • Cairo — Articolul 15
    (a) Everyone shall have the right to own property acquired in a legitimate way, and shall be entitled to the rights of ownership, without prejudice to oneself, others or to society in general. Expropriation is not permissible except for the requirements of public interest and upon payment of immediate and fair compensation
    (b) Confiscation and seizure of property is prohibited except for a necessity dictated by law.
  • Paris — Articolul 27
    (1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
    (2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.
  • Cairo — Articolul 16
    Everyone shall have the right to enjoy the fruits of his scientific, literary, artistic or technical production and the right to protect the moral and material interests stemming therefrom, provided that such production is not contrary to the principles of Shari’ah.
  • Paris — Articolul 7
    All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.
  • Cairo — Articolul 19
    (a) All individuals are equal before the law, without distinction between the ruler and the ruled.
    (b) The right to resort to justice is guaranteed to everyone.
    (c) Liability is in essence personal.
    (d) There shall be no crime or punishment except as provided for in the Shari’ah.
  • Paris — Articolul 19
    Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
  • Cairo — Articolul 22
    (a) Everyone shall have the right to express his opinion freely in such manner as would not be contrary to the principles of the Shari’ah.
    (b) Everyone shall have the right to advocate what is right, and propagate what is good, and warn against what is wrong and evil according to the norms of Islamic Shari’ah.
    (c) Information is a vital necessity to society. It may not be exploited or misused in such a way as may violate sanctities and the dignity of Prophets, undermine moral and ethical values or disintegrate, corrupt or harm society or weaken its faith.
  • Paris — Articolul 21
    (1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
    (3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.
  • Cairo — Articolul 23
    (b) Everyone shall have the right to participate, directly or indirectly in the administration of his country’s public affairs. He shall also have the right to assume public office in accordance with the provisions of Shari’ah.
  • Paris — Articolul 2
    Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
  • Cairo — Articolul 24
    All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shari’ah.

Ah, şi pentru a evita orice confuzie:

    Cairo — Articolul 25
    The Islamic Shari’ah is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification to any of the articles of this Declaration.

Deci, ce înseamnă adoptarea amendamentului din 28 martie 2008?
Articolul 19 din declaraţia originală a drepturilor omului a fost înlocuit cu articolul 22 din declaraţia de la Cairo a drepturilor islamului. Au mai rămas 29 de articole de înlocuit.

Şi nu văd de ce nu. La începutul acestor rînduri spuneam că „articolul 19 afirmă simplu şi clar” un drept universal adoptat acum 60 de ani. M-am înşelat. În pofida verbiajului, declaraţia de la Cairo este mult mai simplă şi mai clară. În islam, omul are un singur drept.

Dreptul la sharia.

Pînă şi ONU recunoaşte acest fapt. Inclusiv universalitatea acestui drept pentru toţi oamenii.

Referinţe

Universal Declaration of Human Rights — Paris, 1948

The Declaration on Human Rights in Islam — Cairo, 1990

UN Human Rights Council

Petition — 40 civil society organizations call on the Human Rights Council to protect special mandate on Freedom of Expression

Vote on freedom of expression marks the end of Universal Human Rights — International Humanist and Ethical Union

How the Islamic states dominate the UN Human Rights Council — International Humanist and Ethical Union

Blasphemy, ‘Islamophobia,’ and the Repression of Dissent — Hudson Institue

Emil Borcean

Emil Borcean

Comentarii

  1. spacedkSpune:

    Răspunde
    aprilie 17, 2008

    Nu stiu in ce masura doreau acele state islamice sa acorde un caracter universalist declaratiei lor. In schimb, pot acuza ONU ca a lasat aceasta portita deschisa. In cele din urma, cineva, cumva, se va strecura prin ea. Heh, deja a facut-o de fapt, Ideea Shariei inclusa in aceste drepturi ale omului nu este neaparat rea, ca principiu. Noi spunem ca toti oamenii au dreptul la viata, dar in acelasi timp ne executam criminalii inraiti. Ceea ce nu e un lucru rau. Vreau doar sa spun ca dreptul la viata nu este absolut in orice conditii. Acelasi lucru il zic si musulmanii, ei doar adaugand explicit acest aspect in declaratie – jurisprudenta lor fiind mai mult o gluma. Ceea ce, repet, principial nu e rau. Dar faptul ca se face apel la legea islamica in atatea randuri, in asemenea fel, distruge ideea universalitatii declaratiei si distruge ideea de „good faith” pe care incearca s-o impuna prin ea. ONU a devenit protectoarea localismului cultural si nu m-ar surprinde ca in cativa ani sa avem nu una, nu doua ci poate zece declaratii „universale”. Este inca un cui in sicriul acestei organizatii.

  2. emilSpune:

    Răspunde
    aprilie 17, 2008

    spacedk
    „Nu stiu in ce masura doreau acele state islamice sa acorde un caracter universalist declaratiei lor.”

    Din preambulul declaratiei de la Cairo:

    The Member States of the Organization of the Islamic Conference,

    Reaffirming the civilizing and historical role of the Islamic Ummah which God made the best nation that has given mankind a universal and well-balanced civilization in which harmony is established between this life and the hereafter and knowledge is combined with faith; and the role that this Ummah should play to guide a humanity confused by competing trends and ideologies and to provide solutions to the chronic problems of this materialistic civilization.

    Revin.

  3. PanseluţaSpune:

    Răspunde
    aprilie 17, 2008

    emil
    Jos palaria pentru articol. N-am vazut nicaieri o punere alaturi a celor doua Declaratii, asa de necesara.
    Preambulul Declaratiei de la Cairo e o capodopera care merita o discutie in sine.

    Voi reveni si eu dupa ce ma asez mai bine in fotoliu, dupa o alta zi in care noi membri ai glorioasei Ummah, cea care va lumina omenirea, s-au casapit intre ei cu pofta, si eu si suntem patrupeda mea hranite si cu chef de vorba.

    Ce m-a izbit in relatarea ta e toata liota asta de observatori, raportori, raportori speciali, comisari politici, experti de toate felurile, si masele de tragatori de sfori din culise de la ONU si UE care traiesc, cinic de bine, din banul contribuabilului ale carui nevoi reale n-au nici o semnificatie pentru ei.
    ONU si UE sunt, de fapt, imense escrocherii („rackets”) care asigura sinecuri si trai-neneaca pentru o noua clasa de elita din bani publici si bani proveniti din regimuri corupte.
    Ideea ca o parte din obolul meu anual–fie si 5 centi–se duce la intretinearea mandarinilor de la ONU cu fundul latit de atita stat in sedinte unde dorm pe rupte visind la conturile lor off-shore ma umple de furie.

  4. PanseluţaSpune:

    Răspunde
    aprilie 17, 2008

    Rectific:
    „si eu si patrupeda mea suntem hranite si cu chef de vorba”.

  5. emilSpune:

    Răspunde
    aprilie 17, 2008

    spacedk
    Aparenta contradictie dintre dreptul la viata si pedeapsa cu moartea. Declaratia din 48 mai specifica si asta:

    Article 29.
    (2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

    E pe limba avocatilor, dar suficient intr-o curte de justitie.

    Personal, sint in favoarea pedepsei capitale. Asta e insa o cu totul alta discutie si nu intru in detalii aici. Inca o remarca pe fuga, la care voi reveni odata. Am rezerve fata de declaratia din 48. O serie de drepturi care sint stipulate drept „fundamentale” nu sint deloc fundamentale. Da, sint dezirabile, dar nu au ce cauta intr-o declaratie care enumereaza drepturi si libertati universale, care ar trebui garantate. Dreptul la timp liber (art 24), la educatie (art 26, para 1 si 2), la viata culturala (art 27, para 1), la o ordine internationala justa (art 28), formularea art 23 lasa mult de dorit (dreptul la munca, la sindicalizare), art 22 e cam aiurea cu drepturi economice, culturale si sociale aruncate de-a valma si mult prea generic. A doua jumatate a declaratiei din 48 seamana mult cu o lista pentru Mos Craciun. Chiar si asa, declaratia din 48 e superioara celei din 90. Dar asta e doar o paranteza. Let’s keep our eyes on the ball. Sharia.

    Panseluta
    Abia astept ziua cind un stat va iesi din ONU sau UE. Se va intimpla, odata si odata. Fundurile astea grase de birocrati si tehnocrati vor primi un bombeu drept in boase. Mama lor de paraziti aroganti.

  6. costinSpune:

    Răspunde
    aprilie 17, 2008

    nu-mi vine sa cred…

  7. spacedkSpune:

    Răspunde
    aprilie 17, 2008

    emil – nu stiu daca ai inteles clar ce vroiam sa zic. nu condamnam pedeapsa capitala ci ziceam doar ca declaratia universala a drepturilor omului nu specifica acest element deoarece este la latitudinea fiecarui stat de a-as apara cetatenii cum considera de cuviinta. De unde si caracterul ei universal. In orice caz, multumesc pentru rectificare. As mai scrie 2-3 idei dar mi s-a colorat ecranul mov pe laptop. O sa continui cand ajung acasa ???? In orice caz, foarte interesant articolul. Genul de stiri care, din pacate, nu prea il vezi in presa.

  8. emilSpune:

    Răspunde
    aprilie 17, 2008

    spacedk
    Am inteles ca nu condamnai pedeapsa capitala ???? Am lasat o impresie gresita. Scuze.

  9. andreanumSpune:

    Răspunde
    aprilie 17, 2008

    dupa ce drepturile omului nu mai sunt ale omului, urmeaza ca drepturile animalelor sa fie mai bine aparate si mai importante decit (ce a mai ramas din) drepturile omului si terminam povestea. Iar cind cartele de drepturi vor deveni doar vorbe in vint si obiect de studiu pentru filosofi, atunci s-a dus dracului si omenirea si vom tinji sa devenim animale…

  10. emilSpune:

    Răspunde
    aprilie 17, 2008

    Andreanum, ai perfecta dreptate. Dar stii, uneori realitatea bate imaginatia. Zic asta deoarece tentativa de a pune animalele pe acelasi plan etic cu oamenii nu „urmeaza”, e in plina desfasurare.
    In 2006, guvernul socialist al Spaniei a dezbatut urmatoarea legislatie:
    Drive to give ‘human’ rights to apes leaves Spanish divided
    In esenta, socialistii spanioli s-au declarat in favoarea unei legi care sa recunoasca extinderea citorva drepturi ale omului catre cimpanzei, gorile si urangutani. Scopul declarat: crearea unei „comunitati de egali” intre oameni si animale. Deocamdata incepem cu maimutele, dar e loc pentru toate speciile. Implicatiile sint foarte serioase. In primul rind, e o incercare de a devaloriza existenta umana. La propriu, animalizindu-l. Initiativa spaniola provine de la Great Apes Project, o organizatie din Seattle care militeaza agresiv pentru introducerea in legislatie a echivalarii intre drepturile omului si „drepturile” maimutelor. Mai multe detalii si o analiza gasesti aici:
    Chimps And Salsa: Spain Joins The Anti-Human Movement

  11. GrădinariuSpune:

    Răspunde
    aprilie 17, 2008

    Dar drept de vot nu le dau cimpanzeilor? (Mă gândesc că, nefiind capabile de moralitate, raţiune sau discernământ, vor vota cu socialiştii în masă!) De fapt, pe când primul cimpanzeu-senator? Asta ca să nu mă gândesc la un echivalent al lui Obama din rândul maimuţelor…

  12. spacedkSpune:

    Răspunde
    aprilie 17, 2008

    Pe mine nu ma sperie chiar in halul asta astfel de initiative. Sunt destui oameni care nu-si merita statutul asa ca n-o sa-l apar orbeste, it’s up for grabs, ca sa zic asa. Exagerez, desigur, dar parca un om care nu merita sa fie numit asa ma deranjeaza mai mult decat un animal cu drept de viata.

    Emil, zici de o „incercare de a devaloriza existenta umana”, dar nu inteleg cine ar vrea asa ceva (bine, in afara de socialistii spanioli) si mai ales cu ce scop?

  13. emilSpune:

    Răspunde
    aprilie 17, 2008

    spacedk
    Spui:
    „Sunt destui oameni care nu-si merita statutul asa ca n-o sa-l apar orbeste, it’s up for grabs, ca sa zic asa. Exagerez, desigur, dar parca un om care nu merita sa fie numit asa ma deranjeaza mai mult decat un animal cu drept de viata.

    Emil, zici de o “incercare de a devaloriza existenta umana”, dar nu inteleg cine ar vrea asa ceva (bine, in afara de socialistii spanioli) si mai ales cu ce scop?”

    Te plimbi pe un cimp minat si nu cred ca iti dai seama. Acesta va fi un comentariu lung, pentru ca voi cita in extenso din cartea „From Darwin to Hitler” de Richard Weikart. As fi putut sa sumarizez in doua paragrafe ceea ce Weikart discuta in detaliu in fragmentul urmator… insa detaliile pe care Weikart le ofera vizavi de evolutia (ironie involuntara) anumitor idei extrem de influente la sfirsit de secol 19 sint foarte necesare. Aceste detalii reprezinta una din fundatiile pe care s-au dezvoltat in secolul 20 atit fascismul, cit si miscarea progresista contemporana. Am zis una din fundatii, tine minte. De asemenea, aleg sa iti prezint aceasta istorie demult uitata (si din pacate ignorata azi) pentru ca doresc sa iti formezi o opinie nefiltrata prin posibila mea subiectivitate. Si in al treilea si ultimul rind, e si un indemn implicit pentru tine si oricine interesat sa cerceteze pe cont propriu istoria ideilor de la sfirsit de secol 19 si inceput de secol 20. In acea perioada se afla cheia intelegerii a numeroase fenomene din prezent.

    Bun, destul cu introducerea. Primul pas il consta in recitirea acestui articol scurt pe care l-am mentionat in comentariul meu anterior.
    Chimps And Salsa: Spain Joins The Anti-Human Movement
    Te rog sa-l parcurgi daca nu ai facut-o deja, pentru ca analiza intreprinsa sumar acolo este bine iluminata si justificata de ceea ce va urma. Iti propun un traseu in care pornim de la setul de aprecieri din articol si facem o calatorie in trecut pentru a verifica in ce masura aprecierile respective au validitate si mai ales, pe ce se sprijina validitatea lor.

    Fragment din:

    Chapter 4 – The Value of Life and the Value of Death

    Darwinism was a matter of life and death. No one understood this better than Darwin did. Immediately after explaining that each organism „has to struggle for life, and to suffer great destruction,” he closed his chapter on „The Struggle for Existence” on a more comfort­ing note: „When we reflect on this struggle, we may console ourselves with the full belief, that the war of narure is not incessant, that no fear is felt, that death is generally prompt, and that the vigorous, the healthy, and the happy survive and multiply.” This put a rather positive spin on the strug­gle for existence, the „law, leading to the advancement of all organic beings, namely, multiply, vary, let the strongest live and the weakest die.” Even while overtly denying any purpose or goal for evolution, Darwin could not resist the mid-Victorian cult of progress, as these passages illustrate with their vision of increasing health, strength, and even happiness.
    One of the alluring features of Darwinism, it seems to me, was that it offered a secular answer to the problem of evil and death. Indeed, it was more than an answer-it gave Darwinists hope and inspiration that suffer­ing and death would ultimately spawn progress. Darwin clearly viewed death and destruction as an engine of evolutionary progress, as we see in the penultimate sentence of The Origin of Species: „Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capa­ble of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows.” Darwin’s jubilation at the power of natural selection to wrest victory from the jaws of death is reminiscent of the biblical promise, „Death is swallowed up in victory.” In one respect, then, Darwin’s theory of natural selection was a secular answer to Judeo-Christian theodicy (the justification of a benevolent God in a world of evil), since it provided an explanation for the existence of evil and promised that evil would ultimately fulfill a good purpose.

    In a speech honoring Darwin’s hundredth birthday in 1909 Max von Gruber, a famous professor of hygiene at the University of Munich, expressed exactly this point. He opened his speech by countering the common misconception that nature is peaceful, harmonious, and idyllic. Rather it is „filled with pitiless, gruesome struggle, with torment and death … Not only do animals murder animals, but plants murder plants.” Darwin, Gruber exulted, had discovered a rationale behind all this seemingly meaningless misery:

    The never-ceasing struggle is, according to him [Darwin], not useless. It constantly clears away the malformed, the weak, and the inferior among the generations and thus secures the future for the fit. Thus only through the inexorable extermination of the negative variants does it provide living space for the strong and its strong offspring, and it keeps the species healthy, strong, and able to live.

    Suffering and death, then, were not gratuitous, but fulfilled a higher pur­pose-the preservation and advancement of all living beings. Even though Gruber thought human reason and pity could and should mollify the strug­gle among humans, Darwinism helped him find purpose and meaning in the mass destruction of other organisms.
    Perhaps the promise of evolutionary progress gave comfort in the face of death and destruction, but, on the other hand, Darwinism increased the sting of death, at least in a quantitative sense. Darwin formulated his the­ory of natural selection after reading Thomas Robert Malthus’s famous Essay on the Principle of Population. Malthus based his population principle on the biological observation that most organisms produce far more prog­eny than can possibly survive. He argued that, like other organisms, the human population tends to increase faster than the food supply, unless checked by other restraints (disease, war, etc.). Because of this imbalance between reproduction rates and food supply, Malthus believed that the vast majority of people must die without reproducing. Death-indeed mass death-was thus central to the Malthusian vision that Darwin appropriated and then propagated. Adrian Desmond in his biography of T. H. Huxley is not exaggerating when he claims that according to Darwin’s theory, „only from death on a genocidal scale could the few progress.”
    To be sure, the struggle for existence among organisms is more often peaceful competition than bloody combat, but Darwin recognized that killing-even within species-is also a normal part of the struggle:

    It may be difficult, but we ought to admire the savage instinctive hatred of the queen-bee, which urges her instantly to destroy the young queens her daughters as soon as born, or to perish herself in the combat; for undoubt­edly this is for the good of the community; and maternal love and maternal hatred, though the latter fortunately is most rare, is all the same to the inexorable principle of natural selection.

    Darwin may have admired the queen bee’s instinctive hatred and infanti­cide (if I may indulge in anthropomorphizing here), but he certainly did not see it as a model for human conduct, since he thought human instincts tended more toward love and altruism. But what if humans had aggressive intincts that were more powerful than the altruistic ones? Darwin consis­tently denied this possibility, but not all Darwinists would follow suit.
    The Darwinian idea of death as a natural engine of evolutionary progress represented a radical shift from the Christian conception of death as an unnatural, evil foe to be conquered. This shift would bring in its train a whole complex of ideas that would alter ways of thinking about killing and the „right to life.” Before Darwinism burst onto the scene in the mid nineteenth century, the idea of the sanctity of human life was dominant in European thought and law (though, as with all ethical principles, not always followed in practice). Judeo-Christian ethics proscribed the killing of innocent human life, and the Christian churches explicitly forbade murder, infanticide, abortion, and even suicide. The sanctity of human life became enshrined in classical liberal human rights ideology as „the right to life” which according to John Locke and the United States Declaration of Independence, was one of the supreme rights of every individual. Until the second half of the nineteenth century, and to a large extent even in the twentieth century, almost all Christian churches and most anticlerical European liberals upheld the idea of the sanctity of human life, even tough they may not have used that terminology. This was reflected in European legal codes, which strictly forbade assisted suicide, infanticide and abortion. According to the historian Udo Benzenhofer, no one advo­cated assisted suicide in medieval and modern Europe before the second half of the nineteenth century (the only possible exception is Thomas More but Benzenhofer argues that More’s treatment of euthanasia was parody, not advocacy).
    Only in the late nineteenth and especially the early twentieth century did significant debate erupt over issues relating to the sanctity of human life, especially infanticide, euthanasia, abortion, and suicide. It was no mere coincidence that these contentious issues emerged at the same time that Darwinism was gaining in influence. Darwinism played an important role in this debate, for it altered many people’s conceptions of the importance and value of human life, as well as the signiflcance of death.
    Some historians writing about euthanasia and eugenics in Germany have commented on this phenomenon, but few have analyzed it in any depth.
    What aspects of Darwinism brought about this transformation in think­ing about the value of human life? First, Darwinism altered some people’s conceptions of the human position in the cosmos and in the organic world. T. H. Huxley had dubbed this the question of „Man’s Place in Nature,” and many German Darwinists, including Ernst Haeckel, considered this one of the most important aspects of Darwinism. The traditional Christian view of the value of human life was one idea Haeckel wanted to revise in the light of evolution. In his 1904 book, The Wonders of Life, he remarked that „the value of our human life appears to us today, on the firm foundation of evolutionary theory, in an entirely different light, than it did fifty years ago.” How did Haeckel think it had changed? Stated succinctly, Haeckel did not think that human life was particularly valuable, nor did he think that all people had the same value. This point comes through in many of his writings, and he expressed it quite clearly already in 1864 to his devout Christian father:

    I share essentially your view of life, dear father, only I value human life and humans themselves much less than you …. The individual with his personal existence appears to me only a temporary member in this large chain, as a rapidly vanishing vapor … Personal individual existence appears to me so horribly miserable, petty, and worthless, that I see it as intended for nothing but for destruction.

    Haeckel and many other German Darwinists fought incessantly against all dualistic views of humans, which endued human life with much greater value than animals. For Haeckel and most German Darwinists, humans were not much different from animals, and they often criticized Christians and other dualists for insisting on significant qualitative distinctions between humans and animals.
    In rejecting mind-body dualism Haeckel explicitly denied the existence of an immaterial human soul. Haeckel contended that all the activities traditionally ascribed to the human soul were nothing more than material processes originating in the central nervous system. He even admitted that his psychology was materialistic, since he believed that psychology could ultimately be reduced to physiology. Despite his slippery use of religious terminology, Haeckel was clearly a reductionist who denied free will and insisted on mechanistic explanations for everything, including the human soul. Though Darwin (at least in his published works) was never as explicit as Haeckel in denying mind-body dualism, Darwin did nonetheless embrace reductionism by providing natural explanations for all human characteristics, including those traditionally considered unique aspects of the human soul or spirit, such as rationality, emotions, conscience, morality, and even religion.
    Forel’s psychiatry-and his eugenics-was based squarely on his rejec­tion of body-soul dualism, which, he claimed, had been undermined by Darwinian theory. Darwinism was, according to him, the greatest achieve­ment of the nineteenth century, since it „gave birth to the germ of the dis­covery of the identity of the human soul with the brain, and therewith dealt the deathstroke to the dualism of body and soul.” According to his own account, when he read Darwin’s Origin of Species, „it was as though scales fell from my eyes” and it converted him to the belief that human psy­chology can be reduced to brain physiology. At his habilitation defense (a second dissertation qualifying one to teach in German universities) Forel defended the Darwinian thesis: „All characteristics of the human soul orig­inate from those of higher animals.” Forel explained to Haeckel that in his view monism is the „scientific proof of the essential identity of the psy­chological activities of humans and animals and their neurophysiological side.” By undercutting tbe Judeo-Christian and Kantian claim tbat humans had unique moral status based on an immaterial soul, Haeckel, Forel, and other Darwinists helped undermine the idea that buman life is intrinsically sacred and inviolable.
    Most leading German psychiatrists adopted views of the human mind similar to Haeckel’s and Forel’s. They rejected body-soul dualism and embraced a deterministic view of the human psycbe. However, it is not always clear what role Darwinism played in the formation of tbese views. Most German psychiatrists did not leave us a detailed autobiography of their inrellectual development. One who did, Kraepelin, revealed in his memoirs that his interest in biological evolution developed already in his childhood. Unfortunately, though, he never explained how or if it influenced the development of his views on psychiatry. What we do know, however, is that Kraepelin embraced a worldview including Darwinian evo­lution and a deterministic view of mind. He criticized the traditional notion of body-soul dualism as an impediment to the scientific investiga­tion of the mind. Many other prominent German psychiatrists upheld similar views, which denied special status to the human mind or soul.
    Whether or not Darwinism entails the rejection of body-soul dualism, as Haeckel and Forel insisted, and whether or not the denial of such dual­ism entails a devaluation of human life I will leave to the philosophers. What is interesting historically is that Haeckel was by no means alone in his sentiments about evolution devaluing human life. In 1880, the zoologist Robby Kossmann (who later became a professor of medicine) explained the implications of Darwinism for the significance of human life to a popular audience in his article, „The Significance of the Life of an Individual in the Darwinian World View.” Like Haeckel, Kossmann argued that Darwinism should revolutionize one’s entire worldview. Evolution had huge impli­cations for the significance of human life, because it „tore down the bound­aries between the animal and human world.” The Darwinian worldview, according to Kossmann, subordinated the individual to the community, since all individuals necessarily perish-indeed myriads die before reproducing-but the species continues. This means that the value of an individual’s life can only be measured by its contribution to the welfare of the community. Kossmann pursued this logic relentlessly, explaining,

    We see that the Darwinian world view must look upon the present senti­mental conception of the value of the life ofthe human individual as an over­estimate completely hindering the progress of humanity. The human state also, like every animal community of individuals, must reach an even higher state of perfection, if the possibility exists in it, through the destruction of the less well-endowed individual, for the more excellently enclowed to win space for the expansion of its progeny …. The state only has an interest in preserving the more excellent life at the expense of the less excellent.

    Kossmann was thus declaring war on the traditional idea of the sanctity of human life, since he thought only some human lives were worth protect­ing. Later Kossmann wrote an entire book applying the same logic to state politics. In short, he thought politics should be subordinate to Darwinian principles, including eugenics considerations.
    Even though Dodel was far more humane in his ethical views than Haeckel or Kossmann, he, too, believed that Darwinism stripped human­ity of the special status that religion had accorded it. Dodel, like Darwin and most early Darwinists, recognized that in order to persuade his contemporaries that humans had evolved from animals, he would have to reduce the distance between the two. Humans (especially „primitive” people) had to become more animal-like, and animals more human-like. After examining the similarities of humans and animals in anatomy, embry­ology, and other fields, Dodel posed the question, „Is the human something special?” The answer, „founded on the scientific results of the last couple of decades,” he assured us, was „decisively: No!”
    Many Darwinists agreed with Haeckel and Kossmann that humans could be reduced to animals, and quite a few reduced animals to their phys­ical and chemical components. This kind of Darwinian reductionism was strongest among scientists and physicians, to be sure, but it had severe consequences for the value of human life when applied to human affairs. Eugenicists, for example, often compared the selective breeding of animals, which they saw as rational and scientific, with human reproduction, which seemed irrational and arbitrary. The clear implication was that humans would be better off if they would treat each other the way they treat ani­mals, at least in the area of reproduction. Sex was thus reduced to a mere biological function. The jurist and eugenics proponent Hans von Hentig, for example, stated, „The idea, though today it disgusts us, that one could breed humans, like we have bred other animals for the sake of certain use­ful characteristics, will become important, familiar, and fruitful.” Humans are, after all, the most useful creatures around, continued Hentig, so why not act „scientifIcally” and breed them for desired characteristics. Hentig claimed his entire book, Penal Law and Selection, was an attempt to subsume humans under nature and scientific laws.
    Hentig’s approach was rather common among eugenicists, for eugenics was all about breeding better humans. Otto Ammon, a freelance anthro­pologist and early eugenics proponent, compared humans to animals with even more ominous overtones. He explained that „in every herd there are badly developed individuals.” After noting that animal breeders kill these individuals to keep their herd strong and healthy, he wrote in a passage dripping with irony:

    With people a planned selection of this kind is not possible. We practice humanity, in that we chase the unfortunate individual out into the wide world and, pursued from place to place, let them perish gradually, or put them in institutions where they cannot cause any immediate damage. The prevention of their reproduction is an important interest of society, which may be opposed neither by legislation nor administration nor through private charity.

    The irony is even more apparent in the original German, where the words „chase” and „pursued” were words used commonly for hunting game. In this passage and elsewhere in his writings, Ammon portrayed humanitari­anism as misguided and even cruel, a position not at all uncommon among social Darwinists and eugenicists.
    Not only did the general idea of biological evolution impact the way people thought about the value of human life, but Darwin’s particular theory of evolution by natural selection-with the Malthusian population principle embedded in it-contributed to a devaluing of human life, too.

  14. costinSpune:

    Răspunde
    aprilie 17, 2008

    ma repet! NU IMI VINE SA CRED! Am citit articolul tau Emil si nu am replica. ONU mirosea urit asa cum era el, cu ale lui Drepturi ale Omului, cu O mare, cu O imens.Cu O-urile lui abuzate de „progresives” si folosite inspre secularizare fortata, de-crestinizare. Am citit parte din articolul tau aseara si nu am putut da o replica. ONU, Premiul Nobel, Uniunea Euroepana cu toate guvernele din vestul europei, presa si televiziunea din UE si SUA, elita europeana si americana, „the whole popular culture”, totul a fost deturnat de stinga politica. Pare ca Yuri Bezmenov cu toata tenta apocaliptica a predictiilor lui este doar un copil inocent, ca acea demoralizare de care el vorbea acuma 30 de ani se petrece cu o viteza care nimeni nu ar fi putut sa o prevada. Mai am nevoie de timp sa sap, sa ma conving ca ce am citit mai sus este in intregime adevarat. Aceasta ar fi cea mai importanta stire din ultimele decenii si nu o vad nicaieri…

  15. spacedkSpune:

    Răspunde
    aprilie 17, 2008

    Multumesc pentru informatiile suplimentare; din punctul asta de vedere, da, inteleg ratiunea dar tot mi se pare putin „distopic”. Nu tentativa in sine, ci mai mult sansele de reusita. Dar cine stie, oamenii au dovedit ca pot inghiti multe chestii fara intrebari. E destul cat sa ma puna pe ganduri dar raman circumspect si astept sa vad cum se mai dezvolta treaba asta, daca nu cumva e doar un exces de zel al animal lovers si nebuni ca Peter Singer.

  16. costinSpune:

    Răspunde
    aprilie 17, 2008

    emil… dar asta este o stire imensa!! de ce nu o vad pe toate canalele, blogurile, ziarele si pietele din bucuresti? de cind am citit prima oara asticolul ma gindesc ca poate este o gluma de a ta, dar ma uit la linkurile care le dai ca referinte si nu pare gluma…. ce se intampla? nu ar trebui sa fie asta stirea secolului?

  17. costinSpune:

    Răspunde
    aprilie 17, 2008

    ” One wonders whether His Holiness wishes for more power to such nonpowerful nations as those paragons of human rights that were on the U.N. Commission on Human Rights, mercifully dissolved in March 2006: Burkina Faso, Congo Brazzaville, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Guinea, Kenya, Mauritania, Nigeria, Sudan, Togo, Zimbabwe, Indonesia, Nepal, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Cuba, Guatemala, Paraguay, and others.” este aceasta Commision of Human Rights acelasi lucru cu Consiliul Drepturilor Omului?
    (citatul de aici: http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/3203 )

  18. adiSpune:

    Răspunde
    aprilie 17, 2008

    Outrageous!
    Cum adica „to report”? …. De acum musulmanii o sa fie informatorii si protectorii drepturilor omului. Aceste clase de oameni iselati si prost informati vor avea de acum o unealta ce o vor folosi impotriva celor ce-si exercita acest drept pentru a ridica la suprafata adevarul despre islam… adica asupra noastra. Islamul este o minciuna si de acum incolo noi nu mai avem voie sa spunem asta.
    Cu toate astea, este naiv sa generalizam ca ONU ar fi controlati sau „jucati pe degete” de catre lumea araba. Daca au cedat la un „freedom of speech” ne-„raportat”, sunt convis ca este o cale lunga si poate infinita pana la a ceda complet celor 29 de articole. Si este de-a dreptul abusrd sa credem de aici mai este un pas pana la toleranta ONU pentru politica Iranului asupra Israelului sau a armelor nucleare. (- nu ca cineva ar fi zis asta, dar stim ca unii din noi gandesc asta).

  19. FrancescoSpune:

    Răspunde
    aprilie 17, 2008

    Bine ai venit adi!

    Parerea mea este ca ONU este o organizatie disfunctionala, controlata in mare parte de tari si grupuri de tari ce reprezinta autoritarisme religioase sau nationaliste (Rusia, China, prin puterea veto) si care nu mai poate aduce nimic pozitiv pe plan mondial.
    Fiind document oficial, cedarea s-a facut! Sharia este document ONU!

  20. John GaltSpune:

    Răspunde
    aprilie 17, 2008

    Logic is an enemy and Truth is a menace.

    Ca intotdeauna..

  21. SamuelSpune:

    Răspunde
    aprilie 17, 2008

    Multumim pentru acest articol util. Ne puteti indica o sursa pentru Declaratia Drepturilor Omului in Islam in limba romana, nu engleza? Va multumesc.

  22. emil b.Spune:

    Răspunde
    aprilie 17, 2008

    Salut. Din pacate, nu cunosc de existenta unei traduceri in romana.

Lasă un comentariu

Adresa ta de email nu va fi publicată. Câmpurile obligatorii sunt marcate cu *