Day 24 - On the value of Life

In Europe we are proud of of our laws prohibiting the death penalty. In our Human Rights Treaties this is called ‘the right to life’ and that is said to be a sign of our so-called ‘humanity’. 

The historical truth is that the death penalty became problematic for governments to uphold, especially in cases where a convicted criminal was afterwards proven to be innocent. In other words, the ‘death penalty’ became a political time-bomb because within putting innocent beings to death the governments were placing themselves at risk of civil disobedience and civil war. 

It was seen as much less ‘risky’ to simply imprison criminals for life as the ‘harshest sentence’ instead of putting them to death. Hence it was not an insight into the intrinsic value of a human life that caused the death penalty to become problematic. It was purely political ‘pragmatism’. 

This is why in todays world governments have no problems putting a gun in the hands of their nationals and sending them to war, even if that means an extreme probability of them being killed or of them killing others, even children. Clearly: life has no value. My conclusion is that schools and mass media are a threat to world-peace because the governments have used the schooling system and the media to continue brainwashing entire generations into accepting nationalism and state-authority as something actually worth dying for, instead of humanity realising our interconnectedness and oneness.

What is the solution? Civil disobedience? Dropping out from school? No, the answer is you take responsibility for yourself so that you may walk this world free of brainwashing and stand as an example of what it means to care for another as yourself. 

Investigate Desteni, investigate self-forgiveness. 

The Decision to Bomb Syria is Criminal

In the United Nations charter article 2(4) the members of United Nations have agreed on a prohibition towards violence between states. More specifically it is stated that all members shall refrain in their international relations from threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations. From the wording of this paragraph it is clear that violence cannot be accepted in the international relationships between states. Considering the history of the United Nations, and why it was created, it is not strange that such a provision was included in the charter. The charter was agreed upon immediately after the Second World War, a war that claimed more than 60 million people. For the people back than, that first hand had experienced the horrors of war, it was common sense to make sure that states would not anymore be allowed to engage in violent conflict.

Sadly, this provision have many times been abused, misinterpreted, and misused. The charter allows for armed conflict in some instances, and that is as a measure of self-defense, when the Security Counsel approves it, which is when there is a threat to international peace and security, and when the armed forces of another nation are invited. There are no other exceptions but these to the prohibition of the use of force. However, it is obvious that charter has not been respected throughout the years. United States is one of those countries that several times have moved against the prohibition on violence. The invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, and now, the bombings in Syria, these are not in alignment with the charter, the Security Counsel has not approved them, and hence, according to international law, they are illegal.

Unfortunately the legality of these actions is debated. Both Britain and the US have claimed that their ‘interventions’ in Syria are legally sound in that the cause of action is self-defense, and that they have an invitation from Iraq to help protect their country from the Islamic State. In terms of self-defense, the argument used is that ISIL represents a threat to both the US and Britain.

The problem with this type of reasoning, this constant nitpicking and interpretation of the UN-charter is that the prohibition on use of force is slowly being drained of all substance and meaning. And what is missed in the judicial debate is the true intention behind the UN-charter. In the preamble of the charter, the very first words written down are the following:

“We the peoples of the United Nations determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow”

The Vienna Convention on the Laws of Treaties is the legal instrument that governs how conventions are to be applied and interpreted. How treaties are to be interpreted is laid down in article 31, where is stated that:

‘A treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose’

It cannot be made clearer that the purpose of the charter is to abolish bloodshed. War is not an acceptable condition – and that must be the starting point from which the charter is interpreted and applied. It is obvious that if you start nitpicking, and deliberately look for loopholes and ways to legitimize war, you will be able to do that. Though that is not how the charter is supposed to be read and applied. That is not an honest and respectful way of reading and applying the charter, but rather a devious and deceptive way of circumventing principles, and rules placed by previous generations that first hand experienced the horrors of war.

The use of force can never be humanitarian. The use of force can never be justified on the grounds that it furthers democracy and human rights. AND – more importantly – the Use of Force cannot be justified within the bounds of the UN-charter through shaky legal arguments based on nitpicking and deviously interpreting words with a clear meaning, a clear purpose, and a clear context. The UN-charter is and will always stand as an instrument of peace, and by implication does not allow use of force, and any form of leeway from that main rule must be interpreted restrictively.

A problem with the charter is that, even though a country might be found guilty of breaching international law, it does not make state leaders personally liable for their decisions. Hence, in our current system, it is possible for state leaders to make unlawful decisions, causing massive suffering, without consequence. This does not make sense, just as civilians are able to face consequences when they commit murder, so should leaders and decision makers face consequences when they make decisions that, in breach of international and humanitarian laws, cause thousands upon thousands to die.

At the moment, the United Nations is more of a farce than an empowered institution capable of having real impact, and the charter, more of a document with words that sounds nice, rather than a document of principles that are lived for real. This can all be changed. The United Nations does have the potential of becoming a World Organ that can stand as a pillar of stability in difficult and tough times. For that to happen, changes must be made, and those changes must come from within the individual nations themselves. Because the United Nations, is an organization of countries that has united, and will as such only be as impactful as the involved countries allow it to be.

And here, we, the countries located in the western hemisphere have a great responsibility. Because at the moment, we have the means, we have the military strength, we have the influence, and in that, we have the opportunity to change the direction in which our world is currently moving. Even as individuals, we have the opportunity to make a difference. Because it us that elect our leaders, it us that inhabit and make up the constituency of our countries – and thus we are responsible for the actions of our leaders even though we admit that or not.

Peace is a Human Right, and the Use of Force is a Crime against Human Rights as well as International Law, and we all, regardless of where we are born, deserve a life in which our Human Rights are honored.

Day 7 Security of Law

Yesterday I was interrogated while coming back into Canada from the United States of America. I was driving my car. I was required to to drive my car over to the Canadian Boarder Security Office Headquarter for an extensive vehicle search. I decided I would video record the ordeal since I had a video camera on my phone and I thought it was ridiculous that the boarder police were going through all my stuff and examining and searching my vehicle with meticulous attention to detail. The boarder officer asked me if I was video recording and I told him I was and he asked me if I knew why they were searching my vehicle and I said, "ya it's for security purposes".

In looking at the word 'security', I see that there is many meanings. Initially I just associated security with protection and safety....however with further consideration of financial terms, security is money.

Lets look at the legal definition of 'security':

Protection; assurance; indemnification.

The term security is usually applied to a deposit, lien, or mortgage voluntarily given by a debtor to a creditor to guarantee payment of a debt. Security furnishes the creditor with a resource to be sold or possessed in case of the debtor's failure to meet his or her financial obligation. In addition, a person who becomes a surety for another is sometimes referred to as a "security."

Source: West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved

 

After the boarder interrogation I was asking myself about the legitmacy of boarder security.

 

In looking into boarder security and questioning the legitimacy of boarder security, I noticed that any product that was deemed to be an issue at the boarder crossing is able to be purchased within my counrty. I noticed that the boarder security was all about money....protecting money interests....controlling money interests and regulations. I noticed that cocaine for example is not produced in canada....yet there is a shit ton of it here and that it is in fact big business....and for a shit ton of it to be here, it is not making it's way here in itsy bitsy little amounts....no, it's being brought through boarders in huuuuuge amounts. Why and how does cocaine make it's way through the boarder in huuuuge amounts? ? ? MONEY. Money moves products.

 

I was looking at the word  'country' and 'countries' after my experience in travelling to and from a country. I noticed the words 'count' and 'try'....or 'count and tries'. I associated count with accounting and money as like coutning the value...and I connected the word try and tries to the fact that every country is playing the same game of trying to accumulate value and worth...and is always counting the money as like strengthening security because the wealth of a nation is dependent upon it's security protections...because when security protections are in place a country can operate in all sorts of crazy ways to uphold security protections at the expsense of individual privacy rights and protections because the security of a country is worth more than the security of one individual...and an individual citizen of a country is an essential product of the country that contributes to the total value of the country.

 

Also, I noticed and remembered that war is about money, oil and security protections. Is there any real difference besides the spelling in the words; money, oil, and security?

 

Also, I looked at wartime propoganda slogans along the likes of, "we must fight to protect the security of our country."

 

I looked at boarder security as a means of terrorism security protections...as like preventing the participation of terrorist activity. I then looked at the point that I didn't forsee a real issue with terrorism if we had a sound economic system as like Equal Money Capitalism. See http://equalmoney.org I examined the fact that our entire world system is rooted in terrorist activity.

 

I experienced a little bit of anxiety within myself throughout the boarder interrogation experience even though I had nothing to hide....I feared the potential loss that could happen from the incident...even though it didn't seem rational for me to be charged with some bogus crime and be imprisoned.  Then again our legal system isn't based on common sense rationality. Experiencing anxiety was hell. Our shared reality reflects a prison planet and the prison planet reflects our mind imprisonment.

 

Lets change the nature of our minds to that which is best for all Life here. http://desteniiprocess.com

 

Lets bring forth a world where All Life is of the highest value and All Life is secured in the greatest ways possible.