globalitair-blog

[globalitair-blog]

#globalitair #quotes #social contract #lawsofnature #global https://www.instagram.com/p/Byj0_0vCcVI/?igshid=95w4izhrfxqg

[globalitair-blog]

#lawsofnature #globalitair #global #quotes #socialcontract #fakenews https://www.instagram.com/p/ByfpQEWioK5/?igshid=tymvw0nc4rm5

[globalitair-blog]

#lawsofnature #globalitair #global #quotes #socialcontract #fakenews https://www.instagram.com/p/ByfpLdWCuSy/?igshid=1f0a76kmp9ay3

[globalitair-blog]

Crisis of leadership in Congo

In the Democratic Republic of Congo general elections were held on 30 December 2018 to determine who will be the successor of president Joseph Kabila. The candidate of the sitting president is Emmanuel Shadary, who is the former minister of Interior. The opposition put forward Martin Fayulu as their candidate but one of the opposition leaders, Felix Tshisekedi later broke this agreement and decided to run for president himself.

Article 71 of the constitution states that the president is elected by plurality vote in one round. So far Congo has never had a peaceful transfer of power since the independence from Belgium in 1960. Results were expected on 6 January 2019 but on the 5th the election commission CENI announced a delay, stating that as less than half of the votes had been obtained by the commission.  

On 10 January 2019 the election commission CENI declared Felix Tshisekedi as the winner of the election with 7 million votes followed by Martin Fayulu in as runner-up with 6.4 million votes and Emmanuel Shadary in 3rd place with 4.4 million votes. The turnout was reported to be 48 %.

The Catholic Church, a strong power in Congo, contested this result based upon data gathered by a team of 40.000 observers who tallied results at polling stations.  The National Episcopal Conference of Congo observed in a statement that the results as published by CENI do not correspond to the data collected by the Church.

Runner-up Fayulu challenges the elections results, alleging fraud and asks the Constitutional Court to order a recount. The judges have 7 days to deliberate. They can choose to confirm the results as announced by CENI, order a recount or cancel the results and call for new elections.

The Secretary-General of the United Nations, Antonio Guterres has called for calm and restraint.

The African Union also called this dispute to be solved in a peaceful manner, through dialogue.

Belgian Foreign Minister Didier Reynders says he will use his temporary seat on the UN Security Council to seek clarification about the situation and ask for debate in the Council.

The people of Congo agreed on a social contract among themselves after the independence in 1960 at the “Round Table of Brussels”. They created a new state with a free government, by the consent of its people who are the source of all political power in the country.

They agreed to give up their freshly conquered sovereignty to a national government in order to receive justice, peace and work through the rule of law.

Thus any legitimate presidential authority in Congo must be derived from the consent of the Congolese people. 

The Congolese rulers and all presidential candidates have a moral obligation towards their people to seek peace and justice and follow it. In case of conflict an arbiter has to be appointed.

In this case the Constitutional Court of Congo seems to be the relevant institution to decide on the matter. The Congolese people should trust this high court to treat all parties equal. We have to assume that its judges are allowed to operate in safety and are not personally involved in the matter, nor being favoured by one of the parties.

In case of doubt about the level of independency of this arbiter, there is no organised further appeal possible.

The international legal framework is not clear on how to challenge the respect of the social contract within a individual nation by a higher court.

The United Nations adopted a resolution in 1965 to forbid interventions in the domestic affairs of individual states in order to protect their independence and sovereignty.

However, in 2005 a new global policy was endorsed by all member states of the United Nations: “the principle of the responsibility to protect”. Since then sovereignty no longer exclusively protects states from foreign interference. It is a charge of responsibility where states are accountable for the welfare of their people and whenever a state fails to fulfil this responsibility, according to this principle, it is the role of the international community to ensure that populations are protected from genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and ethnic cleansing.

This is a first precedent that can protect individuals against a sovereign that disrespects the social contract the people concluded with him. However, it only protects the people from the worst atrocities on the basis of international human rights precepts. 

Only in cases of genocide, ethnic cleansing, war crimes or crimes against humanity, the international community accepts for the first time the collective responsibility to act, should states fail to protect their citizens.

This leads to the conclusion that there exists such a thing as a global social contract among all people of this planet and that we all transfer our natural rights to a global collective entity, through a social contact for the sake of peace.

Lets hope that the leaders and the people of Congo have enough sense responsibility to solve this matter of leadership in a peaceful matter and that this will never lead to atrocities that justify the involvement of the international community.

In the meantime, let's hope that the awareness grows within political leaders, international institutions and all the people that share our planet, that we do have a common social contract that binds us all and that it is about time that we organise the collective entity that has to grand us all peace and safety. 

Only within a global social contract can we solve the issues of the 21st century that disrupt and endanger mankind such as global climate change, overpopulation, global migration and inequality.

[globalitair-blog]

#socialcontract #quotes #equality #philosophy #democracy #lawsofnature #leviathanbriefs https://www.instagram.com/p/BsQ8wkdgV-l/?utm_source=ig_tumblr_share&igshid=sqgbl20s3rpl

[globalitair-blog]

#socialcontract #democracy #philosophy #quote #socialcontract #lawsofnature #leviathanbriefs https://www.instagram.com/p/BsOPf1gAdk7/?utm_source=ig_tumblr_share&igshid=awnzhcmerijb

[globalitair-blog]

Gender inequality in India

A member of the right-wing nationalist party Bharatiya Janata died yesterday in an escalation of religious violence at the temple of Sabarimala in the state of Kerela, India. 15 other people were injured while demonstrators were pelted with stones from an office of the Communist Party, which holds power in the southwestern state. In Kochi, at 11 km distance from the temple, a police officer was molested by another group of protesters.

The incidents started after two women had entered the temple early in the morning in breach of a traditional rule that bans women of menstruating age from the grounds, dedicated to the god of growth and celibacy, Ayyappa. One of them claimed on local TV that she was given police protection for her pre-dawn visit.

The traditional ban was officially legalized in 1972. Last year in September, the Supreme Court of India revoked this regulation, judging it to be against the principle of gender equality and equal treatment of man and woman. This outraged vast parts of the Hindu community and the worshipers have since then pledged to keep females of the premises.

Earlier India's conservative Hindu Prime Minister Modi claimed the issue more about religious tradition than gender equality, pointing at other Hindu temples where men are not allowed to attend.

The religious conflict has become a real political standoff between the far-left Communist Party and the right-wing nationalist BJP and is splitting the public opinion into two camps. In October 2018 a preacher, supporting the ban, was put on fire by protesters.

So far the facts. Let's have a look at the ethical implications of these events now.

Gender equality is derived from the law of nature that all humans are equal. In the state of nature, women are equal to man and they enter as equal members of the society into a social contract. This social contract establishes a political society with the purpose of protecting everyone’s rights.

This social contract is based on the laws of nature and one of these laws states that every person should acknowledge the other one as equal by nature. 

The right to be treated equal is an absolute right of nature. This is however not the case with the right to exercise religion. Religious freedom is most definitely an element of the social contract, but it is limited by several rights of nature.

Every person has a right to adhere to the religion of his choice and act according to his religious principles within the respect of the laws of nature.

If a religious principle encourages the believer to treat other people as unequal to him and he acts according to this, he breaks the social contract and acts against the fundamental laws of nature.

Laws and traditions are only valid if they are in accordance with the laws of nature. A sovereign or a government that does not honour these fundamental terms disregards the social contract that enables him to rule and compromises the trust of his subjects.

In such a case, a mediator should be asked to decide on the matter. That's why societies have Supreme Courts and international tribunals such as the International Court of Justice or the International Criminal Court that judges political leaders.

Mahatma Gandhi, a Hindu himself, believed in the fundamental truth of all great religions of the world. He said that the scriptures of the different faiths, at the bottom, all are one and helpful to one another. He also believed in non-violent resistance to end injustice.

If confronted with a breach of social contract, a violation of the rules of nature or injustice, to use Gandhi's term, a person should seek justice by all means and rely on courts of law or mediation to enforce this. Ultimately he can seek punishment for those who inflict intentional harm upon others but never in the intention to retribute evil with evil, never to take revenge. He has the right to defend himself, but without declaring hate or contempt upon another person, not by deed, not by word nor by any gesture. He should not reserve himself the right while seeking justice, that he would not grand to the other party. He should not do to the other party what he would not accept himself.

From this derives that it is wrongful for Indian left-wing protesters to pelt stones at conservatives, molest police officers and put preachers on fire. This is a serious breach of the social contract in itself and entitles the victims of these crimes to seek punishment and retribution.

On the level of religion and gender equality, the ruling of the Indian Supreme Court is in accordance with the laws of nature. The implementation of such a ruling in practice lies in the hands of the local and national political leaders. It is their responsibility to seek peace and follow it in the name of all people they represent. They are called to be wise and use common sense and above all show greatness and behave exemplary.  

Let's hope that nowadays Indian political leaders find inspiration in the greatness of their political ancestor, Mahatma Gandhi to reinstall peace and safety in India and enable all Indian people to savour the social contract they concluded with each other.

Disclaimer:

Leviathanbriefs reflects the personal views and opinions of the author. It does not in any way reflect the policy or position of any legal entity on behalf of which the author operates professionally.

If you are interested in these views and opinions, you can follow @leviathanbriefs via Twitter, Facebook or Instagram.

https://www.facebook.com/leviathanbriefs/

https://twitter.com/leviathanbriefs

https://www.instagram.com/leviathanbriefs/

[globalitair-blog]

#lawsofnature #socialcontract #leviathanbriefs follow on Facebook and Twitter @leviathanbriefs https://www.instagram.com/p/BsId9DpgfOX/?utm_source=ig_tumblr_share&igshid=zevipsr28c6a

[globalitair-blog]

Breach of social contract on New Year in Molenbeek (Brussels)

On New Years night in Molenbeek, a municipality of the capital of Europe, youngsters caused a major disturbance. They looted a pharmacy and an electronics shop, damaged the facades of several houses and did set cars, waste bins and a Christmas tree on fire. The fire engine that came to the rescue was pelted with bottles and bricks.

Molenbeek is infamous because of some of the IS terrorists that grew up in the municipality and carried out attacks in Paris and Brussels. It is densely populated with 100.000 inhabitants living on 16.000 km2 with a population growth of almost 25 % in the last decade. 40 % of the youngsters are unemployed. 

Molenbeek is described to be mainly Muslim. Actual figures range between 25 and 40 %. The largest minority in Molenbeek are Belgian Moroccans. 

The incident got major coverage in the Belgian news media with over 350 news stories over the last 24 hours. Brussels politicians call for more police to stop the impunity. 

The Brussels police arrested 25 people and 2 persons remain in custody.

These are the facts. In what follows I will try to analyse the ethical aspects of this case, for both the individuals that cause this harm and for the rest of the society.

The youngsters that caused these troubles, breached their social contract with the society they live in. They did not respect the rules, common to all people that share the living space of the capital of Europe. They did not behave sociably and did not adapt themselves to the community that they are part of. They reserve themselves rights, that they are not content to grand to the other people with whom they share their living space. They would most probably not accept similar things to be done to their houses, cars and other property. 

This breach of social contract gives the society the right to defend themselves against these individual troublemakers. Each one of them is responsible for his actions and has to face the consequences of his deeds. Each individual youngster should be considered as equal to all other members of society: a citizen that transferred a part of his freedom to a collective society and has the obligation to honour his social contract.

The rest of society also has obligations in this case. 

Our first obligation is to restore and guarantee peace for all member of our society and take all possible action to avoid repetition of these events. We can do that by temporarily restricting the freedom of these youngsters to avoid more trouble. There are many ways to enforce the restriction of freedom. Detention is one of them. If we conclude that our legal apparatus is not sophisticated enough to enforce these restrictions, we have to refine it and make that a major priority. 

This should not be done to retribute evil with evil nor to take revenge but rather as a part of the process to learn these youngsters to respect their social contract and, by means of last resort, in case we fail to do be successful, eventually refuse them permanently the right of free access to our society. 

We should never declare hate or contempt upon them, not as individuals and not as a group, not by deed, not by word, nor by any gesture. Instead, we should show greatness and behave exemplary.

Disclaimer:

Leviathanbriefs reflects the personal views and opinions of the author. It does not in any way reflect the policy or position of any legal entity on behalf of which the author operates professionally.

If you are interested in these views and opinions, you can follow @leviathanbriefs via Twitter, Facebook or Instagram.

https://www.facebook.com/leviathanbriefs/

https://twitter.com/leviathanbriefs

https://www.instagram.com/leviathanbriefs/

[globalitair-blog]

Happy New Year #Hopeful #LawsOfNature #ThomasHobbes

As I write these words, the last minutes of 2018 are ticking by.

Two thousand eighteen has not been the wonderful year most people hoped it would be. It seems like the world is in a lot more trouble than 12 months ago. The challenges are multiple.

- We start to see more devastating effects of climate change, and no solution appears to be imminent. - Overpopulation becomes problematic in many regions of the world, and this problem announces itself to become exponential. - Global migration tears families and societies apart and many state politicians are getting nervous because of a lack of possible solution. - It has become apparent that feminists are still very relevant in our society. Thanks to #metoo the problem is correctly addressed, but we still have a long way to go towards gender equality. - Inequality starts to become a problem even in Europe, with no real rise in wages for workers in many decades, with families where both parents work each at least one job, and only excessive loaning can afford people to maintain the living standard of their parents. The #yellowvests in France and Brussels might be just the tip of the iceberg. - Religeous fundamentalism is thriving and this not only in extreme Muslim circles. - Many citizens rely on identitarian nationalism as a miracle recipe for all their troubles while forgetting that no ideology ever solved the major problem of this world. - #Brexit risks becoming a significant economic problem, dividing people and using lots of energy and goodwill from all people involved. -#fakenews is becoming a serious matter, intoxicating the minds of our populations and setting them up against each other. - #privacy seems to be a thing of the past. Orwell looks like a prophet. -  Wars in Syria, Afganistan and many other places still go on. No peace in sight and new armed conflicts are on their way.

I'm over 50 and feel partly responsible for all the troubles of my generation. While I was young, I always vowed to make this world a better place. I wanted to improve what the former generation started. It seems to be a lot harder than I thought it would be.

In search of answers, I stumbled over an ancient book that reminded me of my courses of Legal Ethics, Political Science and Philosophy at my law school many years ago:

Laws of Nature by Thomas Hobbes (1651)

It was written in a very different time, and yet the world of Thomas Hobbes was about as problematic as ours is today. It made him think of basic principles to guide his fellow citizens. These reflections still look very relevant to me today and I would like to share them with you, to start the new year.

Thomas Hobbes starts from the principle that every person has the liberty, by the right of nature, to use his power as he wants for the preservation of his own life, in his proper judgement and reason.

Only the laws of nature limit this personal liberty. These laws forbid a person to do the things that destroy his life or to omit actions that preserve this life.

This is my summary in modern English of his laws of nature:

1. Every person should seek peace and follow it. 2. Everyone has the right to defend themselves. 3. People should transfer their natural rights to a collective entity through a social contract for the sake of peace and the defence of our security. 4. All persons should respect the agreements they make to enable mutual trust among people. 5. We should show gratitude for the benefits that we receive. There is however no obligation to pay somebody back for a good deed. 6. We should all be sociable and adapt ourselves to the rest of the people; therefore we should only take and keep for ourselves what is necessary for our preservation. 7. We should pardon offences of the past if asked for it by the offender to grant peace for ourselves and the others. 8. A person should not retribute evil with evil, not take revenge but rather show greatness and behave exemplary. 9. Every person should acknowledge the other one as equal by nature. The breach of this is called pride. 10. No man should declare hate or contempt upon another person, not by deed, not by word nor by any gesture. 11. Nobody should reserve themselves any right which they are not content to grand to everyone else. The breach of this is called arrogance. 12. People should collectively enjoy things that cannot be divided. 13. A person trusted to judge on a conflict between parties should respect the laws of nature and deal equally between them. 14. All persons that mediate peace should be allowed to operate in safety. 15. No mediator is fit to be the arbitrator of a conflict in which he is involved personally, 16. No mediator can be competent in a case in which he might receive a personal profit by favouring one side. That is equal to a bribe. 17. We should not do to another person what we would not do to ourselves.

Thomas Hobbes wrote down these laws of nature about 368 years ago. They are more than ever smart guidelines for our human motivation and the organisation of the social contract that unites us all.

May these rules guide all people towards a better world. May they be an inspiration for political leaders, business managers, journalists, scientists, judges, teachers, health workers and all other man and women on this beautiful planet that we all share.

Happy New Year.

[globalitair-blog]

The social contract theory gets its first full exposition by Thomas Hobbes. After Hobbes, John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau are the best known proponents of this enormously influential theory, which has been one of the most dominant theories within moral and political theory throughout the history of the modern West. In the twentieth century, moral and political theory regained philosophical momentum as a result of John Rawls’ Kantian version of social contract theory, and was followed by new analyses of the subject by David Gauthier and others. More recently, philosophers from different perspectives have offered new criticisms of social contract theory. In particular, feminists and race-conscious philosophers have argued that social contract theory is at least an incomplete picture of our moral and political lives, and may in fact camouflage some of the ways in which the contract is itself parasitical upon the subjugations of classes of persons.