Girl Power, Equality, and A Note to My self

How much more is there to #girlpower than #hipsdontlie? That’s what all these things you do tell me. But you can accuse me of having a narrow point of view, still.

What do you really mean to say? That you’re confident in yourself and abilities; that you have that dignity that is becoming of a human being regardless of wealth, sex, or status; that you enjoy your femininity without needing to ‘flaunt’ it, happy in your own skin…

To compare yourselves with men in the typical fashion that you do is not wise. There is no basis for comparison. You are different. You have uncommon grounds. But you are equal in dignity … .

A good way is this: if women’s’ golf brings in more money than men’s, women should earn more. That is justice. As you ask for equal treatment from the organisers, ask from the fans too — and for more fans. Move the market better; earn it; play fair; grow.

There is nothing wrong with ‘inequality’; nothing unjust about it. It’s just the norm in nature. What you might want is fair play and your dignity untrampled.

Why complain about inequality; give a clear principled reason for better treatment, and potentially expose insanities.

Emotional driven justice is not just by nature. Statistics driven justice is not just by nature.

They say that it is unjust to pay a man for more than, or less than, the value of the work done. But if you pay more, that is better: industry revenues and norms, owner benevolence, some special arrangement like profit sharing etc are reasons to pay more. How can you justify paying less?

Again, what do you mean by girl power? Is it about the fact that hips don’t lie?

Advertisements

Imprisonment, Human Rights, and Justice

That the punishments of imprisonment prescribed by justice amount to the deprivation of the guilty party’s fundamental human rights points to one definition for punishment: the treatment of an individual with less dignity than meets man. Saying in some way, that the crime for which the guilty was found guilty, is characteristic of a lack respect for the dignity and fundamental human rights of others. Therefore the guilty ought also suffer a loss of dignity, freedoms, and/or possessions for justice to be done. Not exactly ‘an eye for an eye,’ but, not unreasonable, and not insufficient in measure.

The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) 2010 implicitly acknowledges that imprisonment based on ‘civilised’ justice and a fair trial is not torturous, is not inhuman, and is not degrading. if imprisonment is inherently non of these then one can ask how it is a punishment at all. Therefore there lies an apparent contradiction with article three of section one (Prohibition of torture): No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. And because it carries an absolute sense, and embodies the spirit of the entire document.

Prisoners are a people under captivity, and those in solitary confinement are as under house arrest. So imprisonment, by nature, is at the very least, degrading to the dignity inherent in man. A man’s freedom of movement and his privacy are severely restricted. Additionally, human beings are put in cages and may even fed as animals in a zoo. And depending on the individual psychology or choice of the prisoner, it may be properly torturous.

Rephrasing the article three: it says that just punishments, including incarceration and detention, should not be torturous, inhuman, or degrading. But Punishments typically have elements of torture, are an act in degradation, and might be inhumane. So the question, in terms of human rights, if punishments are just, cannot be fundamentally of torture … . Rather, it should be more about whether a punishment and its severity are just and warranted; whether the practice or act of it meets the purpose of it, without reducing the effectors to sadists or mere barbarians.

One may thus actually say that the article three gives no room to imprisonment, thereby going against certain conditions in articles four and five that permit them. And maybe also, it goes against the laws of a country to which it applies. (I’m thinking of Norway and the Anders Behring Breivik human rights case.) It says that imprisonments are illegal and should therefore be abolished.

Hence, for instance, if Anders Breivik must be punished having his ‘fundamental rights’ violated, he should be freed instead. The notion that breaking one law means that the whole law has been broken applies here. If one right is broken, then all is broken. It is therefore false to seek to implement some rights while permitting others to be denied. Should all prisoners be freed and should the ECHR 2010 document be voided?

Finally, if punishments by imprisonment is a true necessity for justice, the thought of the possibility of infringing on any fundamental human rights specified in the ECHR 2010 should not arise. There should be no statement in it absolutely prohibiting imprisonment directly or indirectly. Perhaps the article three should be rethought, expanded, or rephrased. Where do we start if what it says now is fundamental to everything we mean to uphold absolutely?

The Justice of Miracles

Miracles come for Justice;
Justice answers the call of Law.
Law exists to define the Ideal;
The Ideal is for (our) Peace.

And Peace;
It is the Truth that we seek.
There’s the peace of excitement, joy, and laughter.
And there’s that of wholeness, calm, and quiet.

But our peace must follow the ideal,
And the ideal be according to law.
The law that gives reason to justice,
So that miracles respond to effect it.